Metaphysical statements are not true or false. They have no truth value. They are the underlying assumptions, Collingwood called them "absolute presuppositions," that underlie our understanding of the nature of reality. They are the foundations of science. — T Clark quoting R. G. Collingwood

Is it your understanding from the above that assumptions_presuppositions cannot be refuted?

Every material object has a cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

Some claim matter is neither created nor destroyed. How do you go about refuting this? For example: do you think caused and created are two different things?

The cause is prior in time to the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you think the {cause ⇒ effect} relationship always implies a temporal sequence? For example:

This immaterial cause is what is known as "God". — Metaphysician Undercover

If someone claims God is self-caused, how would you refute this refutation of {cause ⇒ effect} is always temporal?

Il est facile de voir que ... — Agent Smith

Qu'est-ce qui ne va pas, c'est facile à voir?

Do you believe: vulnerability = vulnerable, soul = souls? — ucarr

Do you believe: vulnerability = vulnerable, soul = souls?
— ucarr
No. — 180 Proof

Do you categorically reject common sense?
No. — 180 Proof

The question: Is there a key that unlocks all doors? — Agent Smith

Are "all doors" actually locked? — 180 Proof

:lol: I dunno but Mr. Anderson, Morpheus, and Trinity are looking for The Keymaker. — Agent Smith

I dunno but Mr. Anderson, Morpheus, and Trinity are looking for The Keymaker. — Agent Smith

Another one of The Architect's macguffins. Remember, Smith: "There is no spoon" (i.e. there is no Matrix). :smirk: — 180 Proof

A chilling wind blew across Manhattan that afternoon as they wheeled Malcolm out of the Audubon strapped atop a stretcher. A delay held up the departure of the ambulance for long minutes as little Chuey inched through the milling crowd up to the great man now supine. “I’m not dead,” he told the pop-eyed boy. Was his smile charming the frigid air? Heck. Only the red film covering his teeth suggested anything amiss. “You believe me, son?” “Ain’t got not beliefs,” snorted Chuey. The eyes of the annointed started slowly closing, a calming peace now spreading across his face. “Best answer. Receive my blessing. Assalamu Alaikum.” Something made Chuey speak. “Wa alaikum assalam.” Loud banging sounds as the stretcher collapsed into the speeding-away ambulance. “Ain’t got no beliefs,” Chuey repeated. And then, “but now I got reason to act like I do.”

I'm indebted to you for letting me query you in-depth. I've benefitted much from the experience. It's been an education for me. I hope we'll dialogue again.

Why do you surround vulnerable and souls with quotation marks? — ucarr

I quoted your words. — 180 Proof

Do you believe: vulnerability = vulnerable, soul = souls?

Common sense.

It's also "common sense" that the Earth is flat and the Sun rises and sets and hammers always fall faster than feathers, etc. — 180 Proof

com·mon sense | ˌkämən ˈsens |
noun
good sense and sound judgment in practical matters: [as modifier] : a common-sense approach | use your common sense.

-- The Apple Dictionary

Do you categorically reject common sense?

pan·psy·chism | panˈsīˌkizəm |
noun
the doctrine or belief that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness.
-- The Apple Dictionary

So you believe paramecia – perhaps the most "vulnerable" life forms – have "souls" too? — ucarr

Yes. — ucarr

Why do you surround vulnerable and soul with quotation marks?

Panpsychism? — 180 Proof

Common sense.

I just don't enjoy being scared. — Ludwig V

Yeah. Likewise for me. However, when friends pressure me into going, I must admit I get entertained (thrilled) and educated. I think the director needs to possess a masterful sense of how far to go. Pushing it way out there is scary_thrilling, then going another step or two affords a transcendent experience that's educational; any further and it transitions from entertainment to suffering, a no-no.

One of the Hannibals, wherein Hopkins has a stir-fry meal at the expense of Liotta, that was transitioning from entertainment to suffering. Hitchcock never made this mistake.

So you believe paramecia – perhaps the most "vulnerable" life forms – have "souls" too? — 180 Proof

Yes.

Soul as defined in the context of my four statements connects to two essential attributes of an innate identity of a self: a) unavoidable; b) invariant

Example: a paramecium, when observed under a microscope, avoids an electrically charged probe that causes it pain. Sensitivity to pain and the ability to suffer, I submit, manifest the baseline identity, i.e., manifest the soul of all sentient beings. Since all sentients suffer pain and seek to evade it, it follows that, WRT sentients, these attributes are: a) unavoidable; b) invariant.

I believe emotional and general language is extremely useful and enriching as long as it does not supersede the physical reality underneath it all. — Philosophim

Okay. Abstract concepts expressed in language can never take the place of the physical reality language describes.

Essences capture feelings that objects do not — Philosophim

Okay. Realism directed at physical objects posits them as mind independent existences whereas essences are phenomenalist abstractions that arise from observance of objects.

The latter can be emotionally gratifying, perhaps giving rise to exultation and a sense of overarching spiritual oneness, but they have no causal impact upon the former.

I'm seeking your thoughts on my four statements. — ucarr

What are those statements (link)? — 180 Proof

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/779178

Sorry for the late response. — Philosophim

No problem. Thanks for taking time out from your busy schedule.

I'm not sure what you're asking me here — Philosophim

I'm seeking your thoughts on my four statements. This you have now done to some extent.

All of those things are reactions of your brain. — Philosophim

Okay. I see you regard soul as presented in the context of my four statements as being a psychological term. No doubt I'm talking about emotions arising from everyday experience.

Neuroscience doesn't deny the powerful feelings we have about the world such as purpose and love — Philosophim

I recognize the truth of what you say.

Its just that's the source of where it all comes from, and is not an ethereal ghost. — Philosophim

Here I understand you to be saying the brain is the source of the described experiences, not the soul. Moreover, you're implying such experiences are grounded in a physical brain, not an immaterial entity labeled soul.

soul | sōl |
noun
1 the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
• a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity

2 emotional or intellectual energy or intensity, especially as revealed in a work of art or an artistic performance -- The Apple Dictionary

Do you think there's a meaningful distinction between soul as spirit and soul as concept, even with both posited as immaterial?

As I see it, our conversation, an interview in which you answer questions, has to date distilled five big questions:

01) What is the ground of consciousness?

— RussellA

In the world are elementary particles, such as electrons, and elementary forces, such as the gravitational force. My consciousness doesn't exist independently of these elementary particles and forces... but has emerged from them — RussellA

...my consciousness is inextricably linked with the elementary particles and forces that make up my body. — RussellA

If consciousness is an inherent part of these elementary particles and forces, then this suggests neutral monism, in that that both minds and physical entities are constructed from more basic elements of reality that are in themselves neither mental nor physical. — RussellA

Your answer says elementary particles and forces -- and their emergent property, consciousness -- have their ground within a neutral monism that is neither mental or physical.

02) What is consciousness?

As regards the hard problem of consciousness, as an animal such as a cat, dog or donkey could never understand the European Commission, no matter how much it was explained to them, I don't think humans could ever understand what consciousness is. Even if a super-intelligent and super-knowledgeable alien visited Earth, and tried to explain the nature of consciousness to us, we would still be incapable of understanding. We may be able to learn more about the role of neurons in the brain, but what consciousness is would still elude us. — RussellA

...your take on the problem of consciousness is that for humans the correct position is necessarily agnostic in the strict sense of knowledge-not. — ucarr

More a "theist" as regards a belief in consciousness, in that I know that consciousness exists, but I don't know what it is. — RussellA

Your answer says humans relate to consciousness as an act of faith in the existence of something unknowable.

03) What is the interrelationship between mental and physical?

Perhaps the mind is like a wave on an ocean, where the ocean is the world. — RussellA

Your answer says mental and physical are integral parts of each other.

04) Is there free will or fate?

Even though the world may be deterministic, the Butterfly effect shows that the world is too complex to be able to predict in the long term...a minute localized change in a complex system can have large effects elsewhere. — RussellA

Perhaps because of the chaotic complexity of the world, only a computer the size of the world could undertake any such calculation. — RussellA

Arthur comes to learn that the Earth was actually a giant supercomputer, created by another supercomputer, Deep Thought...Deep Thought was then instructed to design the Earth supercomputer to determine what the Question actually is — RussellA

Your answer hedges ambiguity somewhere between determinism and chaos. Your quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy suggests the quest for this answer will mire itself inside an infinite regress.

05) Can life arise from non-life?

panprotopsychism [says]...fundamental physical entities, while not themselves minded, have special features that give rise to conscious minds when they are arranged into a sufficiently complex physical system. The mind emerges from these fundamental physical entities under certain, and mysterious, circumstances. — RussellA

Consciousness therefore has some degree of grounding in chromosomes and genes? — ucarr

Yes, in that as consciousness is grounded in chromosomes and genes , these are in turn grounded in elementary particles and forces. — RussellA

Your answer, because it refers to question 01), has two parts: firstly, it pairs neutral monism with panprotopsychism: neutral monism says the ground of consciousness is neither mental nor physical whereas panprotopsychism says the ground of consciousness is physical; 02) secondly, it says mind (life) emerges from these fundamental physical entities under certain and mysterious circumstances. In summation, your answer says emergence of life from fundamental physical entities is mysterious.

I have a theory that in many (but not all) instances, the more you delve into anything, the more it can seem reasonable - whether it be Islam or existentialism. Once you get to know the conceptual framework and the nomenclature, it is easy to be seduced by worldviews, especially if a few key ideas already align with some of your encultured views and preferences. — Tom Storm

I agree with this.

I have no problem with definitions and classifications. The issue is how far can you push these to arrive at intrinsic qualities. It's these I am skeptical about. — Tom Storm

Thanks for this. It's a clarification useful to my understanding.

Are you an essentialist? A theist? And why? — Tom Storm

I'm not an essentialist. I just learned of its existence through my dialog with you, so I haven't committed to it. However, I do find it interesting and I can see, in a tentative way, how it is useful as an educational tool. If one assumes humans are alike essentially, an efficient curriculum can be established. As you say, however, it's not wise to go too far in making all humans the same.

I was brought up in the traditional Christian Church. Also, I've been best aided with some of my biggest problems in life by Christians. I'm in no hurry to kick them and their beliefs to the curb.

Having said that, I must now confess that as I gain understanding of atheism -- and a lot of other isms -- I'm delving deeper into the need to think over Christianity closely. Thinking over Christianity closely seems to be my main motivation for coming to this website.

I have no particular commitments to views on human nature and I am fairly certain I am not an essentialist. — Tom Storm

If you have some sympathy for non-essentialism, can you assess nihilism and the range of possible identities it affords humans? Being ridiculous for a moment, let me assert humans cannot become cats.

I don't know what moral logic is. — Andrew4Handel

No intention to convey anything fancy. I simply meant wanting to correct something believed to be immoral.

I don't know if all ideology has a moral component. — Andrew4Handel

If you'll accept a take on ideology in the sense of ideal, which is to say a principle to be aimed at, then you can see how ideology, in this sense, contains a moral component.

Camus seems to just be highlighting that what motivates people is meaning rather than facts. — Andrew4Handel

In response to your above quote I'm wondering if you're distinguishing meaning from fact by connecting the former with intentions and goal-oriented behavior.

Science could be used to enhance life but it has also been seen as robbing life of meaning and turning us into automatons to be manipulated. — Andrew4Handel

In this above quote I see a swirling complexity of thoughts including: much of the value of human life rests upon the foundation of meaning_purpose; scientific facts either erase or defeat meaning_purpose; science is sometimes weaponized against humanity in the form of dehumanizing manipulation; freewill is essential to the type of human power that leads to meaning_purpose and fulfillment.

In the end this is all going to be filtered through personal consciousness which I think leaves us with an existential dilemma concerning meaning making. — Andrew4Handel

Here I see meaning making as essential to human quality of life. If this is partly true, can you elaborate on the role and importance of meaning making and also upon its existential dilemma?

I'm often reminded of the painting "Landscape with fall of Icarus". It seems brutal, but somehow necesary. — Ludwig V

Yes. Although Alien has terrified me, I generally favor bold exploration into new territory, hazards notwithstanding.

Why does my opinion matter? — Andrew4Handel

I'm seeking your thoughts on self-sacrifice for sake of ideology.

I am citing Camus on the power of ideology to motivate versus science. — Andrew4Handel

Do you accept conventional wisdom that says ideology typically contains a moral component?

Furthermore, do you believe moral logic trumps scientific logic as motivator of the fight against evil?

Are you telling me mind is a discrete unit within a system we call world? — ucarr

Not really, more that the mind is an intimate part of the world, along the lines of the article Panpsychism, Panprotopsychism, and Neutral Monism by Donovan Wishon. I'm somewhere between panprotopsychism and neutral monism. — RussellA

Is this type of thinking non-binary WRT the physical/mental binary?

if appearance of randomness can be conquered, will the debate be resolved in favor of pre-determination? — ucarr

Yes, in principle, the future could be calculated, though the computer needed to analyse the world would probably need to be as big as the world, taking chaotic systems into account. — RussellA

Is this a way of saying an analysis of the world, as it becomes viable, merges into the world. If so, is one of the implications that analysis of world is finally just self-referential world? From this does it follow that the self-referential part of world is exampled by humans?

Some will say a concomitant of your above quote is an embrace of the notion life can arise from non-life. — ucarr

Yes. This goes back to neutral monism, which is the doctrine that both minds and physical entities are constructed from more basic elements of reality that are in themselves neither mental nor physical. — RussellA

Is it correct to say these neutral basic elements are in reality to some degree alive and that, therefore, it's meaningful to talk about degrees of aliveness? If these two things are real, then the life/non-life binary is displaced?

In the above statements I perceive you to be telling me innate knowledge is a kind of genetic predisposition for knowing certain things. — ucarr

Yes, exactly. — RussellA

Consciousness therefore has some degree of grounding in chromosomes and genes?

A car when driving on a road is external to the road but is still dependent upon the road. — RussellA

The mind_world interface is something like the intricate tessellations of an M C Escher drawing? A tile -- in this case reality -- covers a surface -- earth -- with no overlaps or gaps?

As regards the hard problem of consciousness, as an animal such as a cat, dog or donkey could never understand the European Commission, no matter how much it was explained to them, I don't think humans could ever understand what consciousness is. Even if a super-intelligent and super-knowledgeable alien visited Earth, and tried to explain the nature of consciousness to us, we would still be incapable of understanding. We may be able to learn more about the role of neurons in the brain, but what consciousness is would still elude us. — RussellA

I see your take on the problem of consciousness is that for humans the correct position is necessarily agnostic in the strict sense of knowledge-not.

Skepticism is not the only possibility. How about trivialization - reacting to information and then forgetting it quickly - which prevents ever really thinking about it? Or treating info as entertainment - infotainment as they call it? Or knowing all about what's going on the other side of the world, and ignoring what's going on your doorstep? — Ludwig V

Today's world indeed. And moreover, the fact of trivialization is not trivial.

...people will sacrifice their life for an ideology. — Andrew4Handel

Do you think this is a good thing?

I don't have reason to believe in this idea of essence or even understand what it means... — Tom Storm

Okay. Essence is not one of your favorite words. Other people talk about it, but such conversations have never drawn you in.

What about essential? Do you sometimes find practical uses for this form of the word? Consider this example: The Jack London Reader: Essential Reading for Action-Adventure Enthusiasts. Is this usage something you can respect, perhaps even make occasional use of?

humans are pretty vulnerable - being fragile and silly animals and all that. — Tom Storm

For me all knowledge is made by humans and has limitations. — Tom Storm

If a sarcastic and witty friend said to you, "Foolishness, fragility and spouting off are essential parts of human nature." how would you reply?

Your Knowledge/knowledge couplet is metaphorically illuminating. They're like tectonic plates rubbing against each other in a perennial state of (creative?) tension.

This tension, I'm tentatively imagining, has much to do with adaptation of sentient being to environment.

knowledge is time-based... there is a difference between what is the case and what someone knows. — Ludwig V

Oh, my gosh! This is why adaptation requires constant updating. This is why the info overload of the cyber world is killing people via stress.

The interaction between the two {Knowledge/knowledge} is crucial to the Gettier problems, though it hasn't been discussed in what I've read. — Ludwig V

I'm guessing with the time factor added into the mix, the math-based logic of Gettier Problem gets a lot more complicated.

It may be that human sentience is nearing a boundary line with permanent info-overload making skepticism a necessary defense. Consider the racial and gender phantasia now essential to political correctness and the pushback of staunch nativism.

As regards the Venn Diagram, the mind doesn't overlap with the world, the mind is part of the world. — RussellA

Are you telling me mind is a discrete unit within a system we call world?

...forces are mindless, although not random. — RussellA

This is a good and important clarification.

I don't believe in spontaneous self-causation, — RussellA

Is this a way of saying, in part, every existing thing has an antecedent?

I believe that every effect has a cause and the world is deterministic. — RussellA

Is this a way of saying every state of a system, say nature for example, is inevitable? Moreover, does this allow us to say that if we had unlimited powers re: analysis of the true causes of events, no matter how complex, we'd eliminate the future in the sense that we'd always know every possible state of a system?

Randomness is a human concept for events that are too complex for us to analyze what is happening, a system may be chaotic but it is still deterministic, whereby effects are preceded by causes. — RussellA

Is apparent randomness the loose cannon in the perennial debate {free will vs. pre-determination}? Per your above statement, can you answer the following question: if appearance of randomness can be conquered, will the debate be resolved in favor of pre-determination?

Is it your belief the world caused you? — ucarr

Yes. The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years and it is believed that 4.3 billion years ago the Earth may have developed conditions suitable to support life. — RussellA

Some will say a concomitant of your above quote is an embrace of the notion life can arise from non-life. Do you embrace this notion?

Your rational mind, however, operates independently of mindless external world, creating knowledge of sense impressions a priori. — ucarr

Not really. Innatism is the doctrine that the mind is born with ideas, knowledge and beliefs. The opposing doctrine, Empiricism, is that the mind is a blank slate at birth and all knowledge is gained from experience and the senses. — RussellA

...innate knowledge does not mean that the person has been born with such knowledge, just that such knowledge wasn't expressed. Innate knowledge requires experiences to be triggered or it may never be expressed. For example, a person is not born with the knowledge of the colour red, but are born with the innate ability to perceive the colour red when experiencing it for the first time — RussellA

A human's innate knowledge, in other words a priori knowledge, is the end product of over 3.7 billion years of evolution, ie, Enactivism

The rational mind has grown out of the world, and is therefore not something separate to it. — RussellA

In the above statements I perceive you to be telling me innate knowledge is a kind of genetic predisposition for knowing certain things. It is a kind of seed of consciousness genetically embedded within the brain. Certain specific empirical experiences, acting like water and sunshine, cause the seed of consciousness to sprout into practicable knowledge.

Do you find my assessment acceptable?

For example, a person is not born with the knowledge of the colour red, but are born with the innate ability to perceive the colour red when experiencing it for the first time — RussellA

Optional Question -- Since the below question concerns a complex subject that needs its own separate treatment, you may not want to answer it.

Once the person has the empirical experience of seeing the colour red and she remembers it, and, on top of this remembrance, develops additional impressions and, on top of these, develops additional evaluative and judgmental thoughts, her mind is now operating independent of external world?

This personal POV of an enduring self, WRT the logical determinism of science, as you probably know, now carries the label: The Hard Problem (of neuro-science).

Do you have anything to say about this?

I think the idea that science adequately explains things is probably an illusion or complacency in the same way some religious people believe there religion is the only guide needed for Life. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. We need each other. However, counterbalance, equilibrium and detente are difficult. They require skill of negotiation and compromise.

Camus said: "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide" — Andrew4Handel

Philosophy at its core, one might argue, concerns wisdom about living the good life. If suicide per Camus is the philosophical problem, then his character bore the stamp of deepest skepticism.

I think questions arise at least partly through discontent. Would we have any progress scientific artistic or otherwise if people were content? — Andrew4Handel

I think part of the irony of success is how it breeds discontent.

After success, the terrifying question looms: "Now what?" The terror in living is how it is an unspooling skein of "Now whats?"

You've been giving me some clear and meaningful answers. I appreciate your candor. Your thinking on these issues is helping me with my thinking about same.

I don't use the word soul or any substitute for it. It's a non starter for me, a poetic or historical term — Tom Storm

Okay. For you soul has no practical use or, at least, no practical use within scientific or philosophical contexts.

A soul is an imperishable essence, so it has no role I can think of in fragility or frailty. — Tom Storm

I think the word human is a synonym for frailty - but also for resilience. — Tom Storm

Given your above understandings, is it reasonable to conclude they suggest you might regard the pairing: human soul as being a contradiction, an oxymoron?

If a friend active within an intersubjective community to which you also belong should happen to say "Intersubjective agreement is the soul of worthy codes of conduct." would you find such usage acceptable? — ucarr

I would say, what do you mean? Perhaps what is intended in that sentence is: 'Intersubjective agreement is the substance of all codes of conduct.' — Tom Storm

Okay. If another person uses soul to mean {something ≠ human soul}, but instead something like substance, would find such usage tolerable?

A soul is an imperishable essence... — Tom Storm

Regarding essence, I understand the word as having two main attributes: a) unavoidable; b) invariant. What do you say?

I am beginning to think that philosophy is a cry for help trying to make sense of the world we have been thrown into. — Andrew4Handel

If you were tasked with putting words to such a cry for help, what words would you use?

In my earlier response to you I was referring to a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity — ucarr

Then the word 'soul' is of no practical use. — Tom Storm

Are you rejecting soul in favor of other words you regard as more appropriate labels for perishable human identity such as: mortal, frail, fragile, delicate, finite, terminable etc?

The fact that humans, like animals, can be run over or shot or harmed emotionally points to any number of things, 'soul' not being one which springs out to me. — Tom Storm

I assumed Ucarr was referring to moral facts from a mysterious and transcendent source. — Tom Storm

Is there any context, set of circumstances or the like in which soul could work as a practical label you could accept?

I don't have good reason to think there are moral truths or moral facts - just intersubjective or communities of agreement about behaviours - codes of conduct if you like, which vary according to context and culture. — Tom Storm

If a friend active within an intersubjective community to which you also belong should happen to say "Intersubjective agreement is the soul of worthy codes of conduct." would you find such usage acceptable?

Scientific theories are a somewhat different kettle of fish. It is true that they don’t always get thrown out when their limitations are revealed and can remain useful for specific purposes. — Ludwig V

Newtonian physics in the wake of Relativity.

I can’t help feeling that there is a difference between Knowledge (“what is known”) – I would argue this is a variant of the concept - and people knowing things – I would argue that this is the basic use. — Ludwig V

I acknowledge the truth of your above distinction. I think one useful measurement of the difference between the two categories is duration. Knowledge-the-variant and knowledge-the-basic differ in how long a certain type of knowing has been accepted and established. Knowledge-the-variant I will generalize as being of longer duration than Knowledge-the-basic.

• For example: knowledge stones roll downhill is presumably older than knowledge France and Belgium have a border.

Another useful measurement of their difference is scope of application.

• Presumably more people in more places know stones roll downhill than people who know France and Belgium have a border.

The idea of scope is interesting. I’m not quite clear how it would apply to the everyday knowledge that epistemology usually discusses. — Ludwig V

The hostess at your favorite restaurant seats you at a booth. As you peruse the menu, you hear a woman talking in the adjacent booth. Within seconds you recognize her voice as belonging to Hermione. Hermione! She's the peachy girl you'll be asking to the prom at school tomorrow. Next moment, you hear the voice of Beatrice, your older sister. The two women are good friends in spite of the age difference. That's how you've enjoyed good looks at Hermione at home and, moreover, know she's quite mature for her age. "I've got a strong feeling he'll ask me to prom tomorrow." "I toldja. Whenever you come over to visit, he can't stay out of the living room. " "Maybe it's 'cause he's gotta use the unabridged dictionary. He's always hitting the books." "Ha! Ha! Ha! The dictionary is a cover. And, it's a good vantage point for catching glances at you in all of those smart outfits you never fail to wear on visits to our house. Ah! You're blushing." As you sink down in your seat, not wanting to be caught eavesdropping on the bestest girl in the world, you start thinking. "So, dad's refurbished Mustang and last year's tux were gonna be just fine for the prom, huh? Oh, I wish I knew yesterday what I know today! Now that I'm assured of getting Hermione for the prom, gotta get a top-of-the-line tux and I'm also renting a black Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat!"

In Enactivism, cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment. The environment of an organism is brought about, or enacted, by the active exercise of the organism itself. Living beings and their environments stand in relation to each other through mutual specification or co-determination. — RussellA

Is it your belief that human mind and physical world enact and maintain an ecological handshake?

• Do human mind and physical world create together a Venn Diagram of an overlap, which is to say, a portion of each identity blended into a shared identity? As I eat the earth I become the earth? As I work the earth the earth becomes me?

do you believe that mind independent world conveys to your mind its contents without any intentions whatsoever? — ucarr

Yes. If a raindrop hits a leaf and moves the leaf, there is no intention on the raindrop's part to move the leaf. — RussellA

Is it your belief that rainfall in the rainforest that grows the plants results from random forces such as air currents, barometric pressure, temperature and the seasons?

I know beyond doubt is that for every effect there is a cause, in that self-causation is not possible, and that there is a world outside my mind, in that I am not a Solipsist. — RussellA

Is it your belief the world caused you?

Therefore, I know beyond doubt my sensations, I know beyond doubt these sensations as effects have had a cause, and I know beyond doubt some of these causes are external to my mind. — RussellA

Okay. So external world causes some of your sensations.

I may experience the colour red in my mind, and intellectually question whether in fact I really am experiencing the colour red, but no amount of intellectual musing will alter my visceral knowledge that I know beyond doubt that I am experiencing the colour red. — RussellA

Is it your belief your brain causes some of your visceral knowledge -- I know I'm seeing red. -- a priori without any help from external world?

So, there's a handshake between you and external world. The sense impressions of your sensory mind result from that handshake. Your rational mind, however, operates independently of mindless external world, creating knowledge of sense impressions a priori.

Do you find the above summary acceptable?

What is a soul? Are you referring to an immortal/immaterial essence as per Aquinas? — Tom Storm

soul | sōl |
noun
1 the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
• a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity

2 emotional or intellectual energy or intensity, especially as revealed in a work of art or an artistic performance -- The Apple Dictionary

In my earlier response to you I was referring to a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity

Let's look at numbers, morals, the human brain and the world.

• We look at material objects and count them on our fingers. From doing this we say numbers describe the world around us.

• We look at human individuals behaving and we make judgments about right and wrong behavior. From this judgment we say morals describe the world of human behavior. Also, we say, because morals describe, qualitatively, human behavior, moral concepts can prescribe, via the law, acceptable/unacceptable behavior

Do you think moral truth, as perceived and understood by humans, is local to the human brain, or does it also have a presence in the world independent of human cognition?

Soul is the heart of vulnerability — ucarr

I'm not sure this means anything, unless you force it to. What, in this sentence, are the words 'heart' or 'vulnerability' referring to? — Tom Storm

Heart -- Remember how you told your best pal Marty in high school that Ruthie was your dream girl in this momentary lapse to insanity you even divulged hot summer night the week before classes started back how you woke from a Ruthie dream at three a.m. feeling that wet stain in your pajama pants and even had to make up story to mama concerning your late night lemonade run to the fridge with spilling to explain the soaked pajama crotch you steeped and wrung out before retuning to sack?

And then in hallway going to next class next day Luther, star school jock ribs you with "Hey, Georgie Porgie sweet on Ruthie wants an orgy. I'll make your orgy Georgie Peorgie!" "Naw, man!" You say when suddenly Marty says "Yeah, Georgie -- I mean, George. You love Ruthie dream girl, boy!" ?

And then you grab Marty's collar enough to throttle him down to hell as he falls dying choking on the linoleum the hottest chicks Midge and Miriam crack up as you turn not red but death-purple?

That's heart, man. The secret chamber padlocked and barricaded. It's the place at where we are really.

Well, where there's heart there's vulnerable. Matched set. Twins. Thaied for life.

Vulnerable -- simply means you can die. You can be embarassed, hurt, throttled, crushed, smashed, murdered, killed, annihilated -- did I mention destroyed?

Simple Test -- Wanna know if a soul you got? Ask yourself one question: Am I vulnerable?

...people are still looking for a soul. Its not really a philosophical discussion, but a faith based and emotional discussion. Once neuroscience ends that avenue, I'm sure people will look elsewhere. — Philosophim

Soul is the part of you that truly believes
Soul-belief comes to children naturally
After childhood it threatens to slip our grasp
Soul is the heart of vulnerability

I write the above four lines hoping they'll bring a response from you

...everything I know exists in my mind. — RussellA

Only the contents of your mind hold the status of knowledge?

I believe that there is a world that exists independently of my mind. — RussellA

I also believe that within this world that exists independently of my mind, there are other minds, such as John's and Mary's. — RussellA

Everything external to your mind holds the status of belief?

Is your belief Justified True Belief (JTB)?

My belief is that this something external to our minds is not another mind but is mind-independent. — RussellA

Do you believe the contents of your mind depend upon the mind-independent world as their source?

Do you believe the mind independent world, not being a mind itself, cannot and therefore does not know itself? {Acknowledgement -- For the mind independent world, not being a mind itself, "itself" is meaningless.}

If you believe the mind independent world is the source of the contents of your mind, but is not itself a mind, do you also believe the mind independent world cannot and therefore does not know you exist?

If your answer to the above is "yes," do you also believe the link goes in one direction only (mind independent world to RussellA's mind) and, moreover, do you believe that mind independent world conveys to your mind its contents without any intentions whatsoever?

Not having put out milk last full moon doesn't justify a belief that fairies exist and cursed his cabbages.

Whereas seeing something that looks like a cow in his field may justify his belief that there is a cow in his field. — Michael

Does the context in which the {observation ⇒ analysis ⇒ conclusion} unfolds play a critical role in the scope of the truth content of the JTB?

Can we reasonably support the scope of truth of a belief as valid by acknowledging the context of the OAC {observation ⇒ analysis ⇒ conclusion} is limited?

The above question is suggested to me by knowing all theories limit the scope of truth they posit conditionally against future additional OAC.

My generalization is that historical progress of knowledge tells us that for any given present day: knowledge has limited scope and is therefore conditional.

...understanding is of concepts that only exist in the mind... — RussellA

...governments don't exist in a mind-independent world. — RussellA

...understanding can only ever be a better understanding of the concepts existing in our mind and can never be an understanding of what in a mind-independent world caused these concepts in the mind. — RussellA

You have concluded our world is mind-independent?

You've lost me. — 180 Proof

Let's revisit a couple of my communications.

'Topics in epistemology' (re: e.g. truth, know vs opinion, etc) comes later once philosophizing has begun in earnest and, IMO, themselves do not, cause us to philosophize. — 180 Proof

When a philosopher is working in topics in epistemology, s/he is doing philosophy. That you believe this you make clear by declaring topics in epistemology come later once philosophizing has begun in earnest. When you follow this by declaring, IMO, topics in epistemology themselves do not cause us to philosophize, you appear to contradict your prior statement that working in topics in epistemology occurs once philosophizing has begun in earnest.

If, when a philosopher does work in topics in epistemology, this work, once it's underway, exemplifies philosophizing in earnest, as you claim, but then you next claim that, IMO, topics in epistemology themselves do not cause a philosopher to philosophize, then you need to further unpack this statement with a clarifying explanation. Without a clarifying explanation, I claim your statement is a self-contradiction.

Since what I say here, like what I said previously, is easy to understand, if you continue to plead non-comprehension, I will conclude your plea is a pretense that enables you to avoid acknowledging self-contradiction.

Reality is ineluctable and, therefore, discourse/cognition–invariant. — 180 Proof

My response to this claim, in short, says it's nature viewed through the lens of rigid determinism, thus giving the claimant power to deny varieties of perception of nature. This leads straight into viewing topics in metaphysics with the same rigid determinism.

Can you unpack the quote? Also, can you cite its source?

The Pyrrhonist argument is quite simple and as powerful. For every thesis an equal and opposite antithesis (adiaphora). The scale of truth is perfectly balanced at the center. Hence epoché, post-aporia. — Agent Smith

Appears to me skepticism has a mathematical structure akin to the cancellation of opposite charges resulting in zero. Since zero in isolation is impractical, philosophy with practical content must be irrational.