You can choose whether or not you have a soul? Perhaps you really mean that you can choose whether or not to believe that you have a soul. So how is this different from any principles of physics, which you can also choose whether or not to believe? — Metaphysician Undercover

Principles of physics are matters of fact. Principles of metaphysics are not. They are "...not verifiable. This does not mean that we should like to verify them but are not able to; ·it means that the idea of verification is an idea which does not apply to them... (R.G. Collingwood)

Principles of physics are matters of fact. Principles of metaphysics are not. They are "...not verifiable. This does not mean that we should like to verify them but are not able to; ·it means that the idea of verification is an idea which does not apply to them... (R.G. Collingwood) — T Clark

I don't understand, some ideas we can verify and some we can't? What do you mean? Doesn't it seem more reasonable just to believe that different types of ideas get verified in different ways?

You actually can't do any of that with sincerity, but we've had that argument before and I'm not in any rush to have it again. — Sapientia

It was T Clark who suggested soul is a matter of choice. I know you believe in determinism, so you can't with sincerity choose to believe anything. But that's your problem not mine.

I don't understand, some ideas we can verify and some we can't? What do you mean? Doesn't it seem more reasonable just to believe that different types of ideas get verified in different ways? — Metaphysician Undercover

How do you verify:

• There is an absolute, objective morality.
• The outside world exists.
• There is an objective reality.
• Every event has a cause. There are no miracles. Causes are naturalistic.
• Truth is the ultimate goal of science and philosophy.
• The world behaves the same now as it did in the past and the same here as it does elsewhere in the universe.

It was T Clark who suggested soul is a matter of choice. — Metaphysician Undercover

To be clear, I said using the word, concept of, "soul" is a matter of choice.

To be clear: I don't understand you at all.

To be clear: I don't understand you at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

I went back over my last few posts on this discussion. I think I expressed myself clearly. I've responded to your questions and comments. I don't know what else to say.

Here's my problem. You seem to be implying that some ideas (matters of fact) can be verified and some other ideas (matters of metaphysics) cannot be verified. But you don't say what verification is. Let's say for example, "the sky is blue" is a matter of fact. How would you verify this?

Here's my problem. You seem to be implying that some ideas (matters of fact) can be verified and some other ideas (matters of metaphysics) cannot be verified. But you don't say what verification is. Let's say for example, "the sky is blue" is a matter of fact. How would you verify this? — Metaphysician Undercover

Here's a definition of "verify" from the web - "make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified."

Is "the sky is blue" a true statement? Let's clarify - By "the sky is blue," I mean the color of the light in the visible spectrum that enters my eye falls within the range of wavelengths normally classified as "blue."

Here are several ways of verifying:

• Ask everyone in the group I'm with - "Hey, look up at the sky. What color is that?" If we all agree it's blue, that's verification.
• Get a stack of color sample cards from the paint store. Go outside and hold them up against the sky one by one. If the one that matches best is called "blue" or some synonym for it, that's verification.
• Get a device that can measure wavelength. Allow light from the sky to enter it. Look at the reading. If it is within the range normally identified as "blue," that's verification.

That's just confirmation bias. I want verification, as you say, a demonstration that it is true that the colour of the sky is blue. That there is a range identified as "blue", and the light from the sky fulfills this condition, does not verify that the range identified as "blue" is the true blue. All this does is confirm that the defined range is consistent with the colour of the sky. It verifies the definition.

If this were all it takes to "verify", we could easily verify that people have souls. "Soul" is defined as the immaterial part of the living human being, which all human beings have. Therefore to be a human being is to have a soul.

To deny that people have souls, is to deny the definition, just like one could deny the definition of blue, and say that the sky isn't really blue. Why do you say one is a fact and the other is not?

That's just confirmation bias. I want verification, as you say, a demonstration that it is true that the colour of the sky is blue. That there is a range identified as "blue", and the light from the sky fulfills this condition, does not verify that the range identified as "blue" is the true blue. All this does is confirm that the defined range is consistent with the colour of the sky. It verifies the definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

This doesn't seem like a very fruitful discussion. I can't tell if you believe what you say or or are being intentionally obtuse as a rhetorical device.

"Blue" is something created, conceptualized, defined by human beings. It corresponds to a range of wavelengths of light visible to humans in general. Acknowledging the usual level of uncertainty associated with observations of the physical world, it's not hard to determine whether something reflects, defracts, or emits light in that range of wavelengths.

Blue" is something created, conceptualized, defined by human beings. It corresponds to a range of wavelengths of light visible to humans in general. — T Clark

Right, "blue" is something created, conceptualized, and defined by human beings. It corresponds to the colour that the sky is. Likewise, "soul" is something created, conceptualized, defined by human beings. It corresponds to the immaterial aspect of the human being.

I'm not being obtuse, my question is very simple. On what principles do you base your assertion that it's a fact that "blue" refers to the colour that the sky is, but not a fact that "soul" refers to the immaterial aspect of human beings?

I'm not being obtuse, my question is very simple. On what principles do you base your assertion that it's a fact that "blue" refers to the colour that the sky is, but not a fact that "soul" refers to the immaterial aspect of human beings? — Metaphysician Undercover

I went back through my posts on this subject. I don't think I said that the existence of a soul is a matter of choice. If I did, I was wrong. I said that the use of the word "soul" was a choice. There is something, as real as "blue," although some would disagree. I don't usually call it a "soul," although I sometimes do. I usually just call it "me." Other names include self, identity, ego, spirit, essence, and lots more.

OK, maybe I misunderstood your point.

But don't you think that "me", "self", "identity", etc., refer to a composite body and soul, not just the soul?

But don't you think that "me", "self", "identity", etc., refer to a composite body and soul, not just the soul? — Metaphysician Undercover

When I think of any of those terms as they apply to me, there is just one thing. All of me. Body, mind, soul, whatever else there is. There is only one me, undivided. I feel myself that way viscerally. I wouldn't know where to draw a line.

When I think of any of those terms as they apply to me, there is just one thing. All of me. Body, mind, soul, whatever else there is. There is only one me, undivided. I feel myself that way viscerally. I wouldn't know where to draw a line. — T Clark

How can you, on the one hand, suggest that your soul is part of you, and on the other, that it is you? Don't you think that it's misleading to call something what it's not?

What you're doing seems to be a more subtle version of calling a dog, "doggy", "hound", "pooch", "mutt", and "cat". It's like a game of "spot the odd one out".

Using any word in any way is a matter of choice. One can choose to use words sensibly or otherwise. Conventionally, the words that you use interchangeably are not equivalent in meaning. That's why I asked you to pick one earlier on.

How can you, on the one hand, suggest that your soul is part of you, and on the other, that it is you? Don't you think that it's misleading to call something what it's not? — Sapientia

A car is a car. What's important is that it works when I need it to. That's it. A car. That doesn't mean I don't recognize a steering wheel when I see one. Love that metaphor. The world is all one thing. I feel that too. But I also recognize what the Taoists call "the 10,000 things." Gotta love Lao Tzu.

Conventionally, the words that you use interchangeably are not equivalent in meaning. That's why I asked you to pick one earlier on. — Sapientia

Synonyms or near-synonyms add a lot to language. Even if their definitions are exactly the same, they generally are different in tone, emphasis, mood. That's one of the things that allows descriptions and explanations to be subtle and meaningful. For me, soul, spirit, mind, me, ego, and the rest, refer to an experience or set of experiences. "Soul" has a particular feeling to it. I use it in certain situations. I have a friend whom I think of as having great depth of soul, spirit. The things she tells me help me see the world in a different way than I normally do.

A car is a car. — T Clark

No it isn't! :angry:

:chin:

Wait, yes it is. :up:

What's important is that it works when I need it to. That's it. A car. That doesn't mean I don't recognize a steering wheel when I see one. Love that metaphor. The world is all one thing. I feel that too. But I also recognize what the Taoists call "the 10,000 things." Gotta love Lao Tzu. — T Clark

So, you recognise that a car is not a steering wheel, and, analogously, you are not a soul? Or, should we be calling cars "steering wheels"? "Excuse me, do you know where I can park my steering wheel?", "Does this steering wheel run on petrol or diesel?", "How many seats does this steering wheel have?".

Synonyms or near-synonyms add a lot to language. Even if their definitions are exactly the same, they generally are different in tone, emphasis, mood. That's one of the things that allows descriptions and explanations to be subtle and meaningful. For me, soul, spirit, mind, me, ego, and the rest, refer to an experience or set of experiences. "Soul" has a particular feeling to it. I use it in certain situations. I have a friend whom I think of as having great depth of soul, spirit. The things she tells me help me see the world in a different way than I normally do. — T Clark

Okay, but I did not get the impression that we were talking about soul in that sense, which seems more sentimental, and not so literal. I understand that the word is used in a variety of ways, with different senses and connotations. I got the impression that we were talking about soul in more of a metaphysical sense, as in, "Do we have souls?".

I got the impression that we were talking about soul in the sense of, "Do we have souls?". — Sapientia

There is an experience. I've had it. Many others have. Some people call it "soul." Sometimes I do.

There is an experience. I've had it. Many others have. Some people call it "soul." Sometimes I do. — T Clark

Can you be any more vague? Again, the criticism is that that could be said about virtually anything, from the mundane to the farfetched, and it is therefore a weak attempt at justification.

I've had an experience, as have many others. Some people call it "ghosts", some people call it "telepathy", and some people call it "God". Sometimes I call it "baloney".

Can you be any more vague? Again, the criticism is that that could be said about virtually anything, from the mundane to the farfetched, and it is therefore a weak attempt at justification. — Sapientia

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to explain. Have you had the experience I'm describing? The feeling of yourself. When you say "me," what does that refer to? Just a body in the mirror, or is there an experience, feelings, a sense of your own presence associated with it? That's the experience I'm talking about. If you haven't had the experience then all I can say is many of us have. We use different words to talk about it. "Soul" is one of those words. You can think of it as a sociological phenomenon to study and understand if you're interested.

Questions...

If the question here has to do with "does the soul exist" what sort of evidence is acceptable?

Only empirical?
Only anecdotal?
Both empirical and anecdotal?

It's just a couple of questions, as the standard of measure for acceptable evidence is somewhat unclear in this dialog.

Meow!

G

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to explain. Have you had the experience I'm describing? The feeling of yourself. When you say "me," what does that refer to? Just a body in the mirror, or is there an experience, feelings, a sense of your own presence associated with it? That's the experience I'm talking about. If you haven't had the experience then all I can say is many of us have. We use different words to talk about it. "Soul" is one of those words. You can think of it as a sociological phenomenon to study and understand if you're interested. — T Clark

Sure, who hasn't? I call it what it is. I prefer to speak plainly and avoid misunderstanding. That's why I don't say "soul" when I mean personal identity or consciousness, and that's why I don't call the profound experiences that I've had "spiritual" or "godly".

I don't say "soul" when I mean personal identity or consciousness, and that's why I don't call the profound experiences that I've had "spiritual" or "godly". — Sapientia

Some of us do sometimes. People experience the phenomenon or phenomena differently. They feel and think differently about it. Why is that hard to understand?

Some of us do sometimes. People experience the phenomenon or phenomena differently. They feel and think differently about it. Why is that hard to understand? — T Clark

That's not hard to understand. The point is about interpretation and terminology. Which is better, or more correct, or more appropriate, or more accurate, or less problematic... I have an opinion on that, and I'm expressing it, as well as talking about the reasons behind it. Why is that so hard to understand?

I don't necessarily agree that the words you like are

better, or more correct, or more appropriate, or more accurate, or less problematic — Sapientia

then the ones other people choose. Depends on the situation.

Depends on the situation. — T Clark

Yes, to some extent. But if the situation is one which calls for clarity and accuracy, rather than an opportunity to speak obscurely or poetically, then my choice of terminology wins. And I am of the opinion that philosophy is better approached by aiming for the former than using it for the latter.

Yes, to some extent. But if the situation is one which calls for clarity and accuracy, rather than an opportunity to speak obscurely or poetically, then my choice of terminology wins. And I am of the opinion that philosophy is better approached by aiming for the former than using it for the latter. — Sapientia

I guess I've said my piece for now. I'm satisfied with where we've ended up.