The soul more or less means the totality of all emotions throughout life, as a whole. — Syamsu
then obviously one would come think of all emotions you had in life as a whole. — Syamsu
as emotions are agency to choices, the soul also chooses. — Syamsu
And in the end the soul is judged by God. — Syamsu
I like the idea - I don't know where it originates, but it crops up here and there - of the soul as something you have a relationship with. It's like something you take care of, but which, in its turn, inspires and aids you. The soul is also you, or part of you, but you're also something in addition which tends to it. Not a philosophical definition, but I think its a nice one. — csalisbury
What do you mean by "force"? If you mean evidence proves something (forces conclusions), you're simply mistaken. Evidence always suggests; it never proves. Nothing inferential in nature is ever certain. If we see evidence of choices, we have evidence of agency. I think you're confusing determinism with induction. We induced the Born Rule in Quantum Mechanics; now there are still deterministic interpretations of QM, but, this betrays your imagined rule that specific outcomes are the only thing evidence can suggest. So the rule is definitely not globally applicable; if you think it should still apply to agency, you're going to have to give a good argument for why. A sketch of what you're arguing isn't what I asked for... rather, I'm asking for the actual argument.The argumentation is about whether agency can be established as fact forced by evidence, or if agency can only be identified with a chosen opinion. — Syamsu
There's nothing contradictory about this form of agency, though. You have possible alternatives (PAP), and original causation by an agent. Again, I think you're conflusing determinism with induction.And then it is demonstrated that establishing agency as fact, leads to an error of contradiction. — Syamsu
But if agents employ this non-contradictory mechanic (original causation selecting an outcome from alternate possibilities), then choice creates real effects in the world; namely, the actions taken as a result of choice. That's enough to possibly establish that choices are a thing using inference; for example, one may study all known effects and look at the residues, in a manner similar to how we discovered the Higgs Boson not too long ago. And if we establish that choices are being made, we can easily infer agency, since you're saying that agents are by definition what causes choices. The fact that this can possibly happen in a realistic manner conflicts with your assertion that logically it cannot. Because of this conflict, I'm afraid you're going to have to justify why you think logic dictates we cannot establish factually that agents exist.And then it is shown that identifying agency as a matter of chosen opinion works, it does not lead to error. — Syamsu
Facts are, as I understand it, bits of information we can consider to be true. I don't know what you mean by 1 to 1 corresponding models of creations. The Born Rule via Bell's Theorem, however, establishes a type of model... that predicts purely random results... which do not have counterfactual definiteness.Facts are 1 to 1 corresponding models (of creations) , that is how facts are forced. — Syamsu
We can make models of pain, a subjective experience, using the Wong-Baker Pain scale and use it to perhaps measure the efficacy of pain medications. I don't know if this is a contradiction or not, because I still can't quite decode your words.You cannot make a model of agency, like for instance fear. It's just not factual. — Syamsu
Either I've rebutted this, or I have no idea what you mean by factual and modeled.Still, it is simply not factual, because agency cannot be modelled. — Syamsu
In a way reminds me of the Golden Compass. Haven’t read the book but I liked the movie. It's why I mention it.
How do you feel about the Latin concept of anima as soul – in contrast to the animus as mind? The anima, to my understanding, is at least in part that which causes one to be endowed with breath, quite literally. It’s there even when you’re in dream-devoid sleep and hold no consciousness. Whereas animus, mind, tmk is at least in part that which deals with conflicts at a conscious level, as in conflicting ideas and drives that one as consciousness has to contend with.
Then again, there’s the Buddhist stance of no such thing as a permanent self, the stance of no-soul, as it’s sometimes translated. Still, in fairness to the Buddhist platform, here there’s still something of semi-permanence that persists lifetime to lifetime. I take it this up to the time Nirvana is obtained. — javra
The anima, to my understanding, is at least in part that which causes one to be endowed with breath, — javra
Without the underlying logic of the soul choosing, and it being a matter of chosen opinion what is in the soul, or if the soul is real, then the concept of the soul is arbitrary meaninglessness. — Syamsu
I think you could potentially square this with the buddhist 'no-soul' (I'm not sure, I know only the very basics of Buddhism) by seeing the soul less as a fixed thing (as the parameters of thought often our in our 'minds' if we've grown sclerotic) than a kind of ephemeral unfolding its own right - ephemeral, but with continuity — csalisbury
The ego is a kind of psychic structure that emerges (?) from the world soul. It expresses the world's potential to cling protectively to a single vantage point. — frank
As to the soul being that which makes choices, it might make choices, but even in common Christian theology it is held that the soul can be sold (and bought) by the choices of conscious selves. So, even here there is maintained a distinction between soul and the conscious self which chooses – although not necessarily one of otherness — javra
The soul more or less means the totality of all emotions throughout life, as a whole. — Syamsu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.