The concept of the soul is integral to the judeo christian framework — dazed
The concept of the soul is integral to the judeo christian framework. It is the focal point for responsibility and human personhood. But it doesn't hold up to scrutiny:
Either the soul depends on brain function to act or it doesn't.
If it does depend on brain function then how can it be held responsible for its actions, since they are actually determined by brain function. The soul never acts independently of the brain, so how can it really be said to effect any acts? The soul is really just along for the ride. — dazed
The concept of the soul is integral to the judeo christian framework. It is the focal point for responsibility and human personhood. But it doesn't hold up to scrutiny: — dazed
then the brain is ultimately more powerful than the soul in causal force? So how can any soul be held responsible for anything? B — dazed
ep. Keep digging into it - look at the root word in the scriptures, Hebrew נפש "nephesh". You are describing a concept that is prevalent in churches, that is essentially extra-biblical lore, and you are naming it "the Judeo-Christian" idea of soul. It isn't beneficial to do that, because it will prejudice your discussions with other Christians, as myself for example, and your reading of the messages that the writers were expressing through the bible. — Serving Zion
If it does depend on brain function then how can it be held responsible for its actions, since they are actually determined by brain function. — dazed
Certainly the questions you raise about brain injury are difficult cases, but there are also cases where people with catastrophic brain injuries recover much more of their abilities and personality than had been expected... — Wayfarer
The concept of the soul is integral to the judeo christian framework. It is the focal point for responsibility and human personhood. — dazed
Is it not logically possible that the soul is the primary source of free act, but then the brain is also necessary for its final product? Consider the analogy of the brain, the tongue, and speaking a language. The primary source of the act of speaking is the brain, but the tongue is also necessary to produce the words. — Samuel Lacrampe
why are some souls sent to heaven and some to hell? — dazed
Good question. A common saying in christianity is that "God judges the heart of men"; where "heart" in religion is roughly equivalent to "intentions" in philosophy. As you say, we are not wholly responsible for our acts due to the brain's health, but we are wholly responsible for our intentions to act; intentions which come from our soul, and for which we are always in full control.in such a scenario, it's not actually our final acts that can be judged but rather our soul signals, but then how do we know when we are sinning or not since all we can experience is our acts and we can't experience our soul signals? — dazed
Much better than knowledge of our acts, we have full knowledge of our intentions; since by definition it comes from us. — Samuel Lacrampe
it seems that in fact we are passengers along for the ride as our brains decide what actions to take. — dazed
This happens to me too, but when I ask such questions, I mean it to say "even though I know my intentions were good (let's suppose), why did I believe that such act would lead to a good outcome?" Alternatively, it is possible to forget our intentions when they occurred a long time ago. E.g. I cannot tell you what my intentions were for an act that occurred 10 years ago (although I fully knew them back then).actually my conscious experience is that we often have no clue about our intentions, 'why did I do that?" "what was I thinking there?" — dazed
This is a complex question, and the answer depends on the level of mental damage. The explanation below is a bit butchered but hopefully gets the point across.Are you proposing that a "good" brain damaged person who is now prone to violence knows that they have good intentions even where they commit violent acts ? — dazed
Technically speaking, since we cannot know other people's intentions with certainty, it follows we cannot judge their intentions. In christianity, only two beings are able to judge my heart: myself and God. However, we can judge the act in itself, and also put people in jail if we judge it is safer for society. Finally, we can still reasonably judge the intentions of others if we know them well. For one thing, we can ask them directly: "Did you intend to harm your neighbour?" -"Yep. He got on my nerves, and I never claimed to be a good person".Should we not imprison and jail such a person because they are in fact acting properly? how can we judge their acts since we don't have access to their intentions? — dazed
I think I can answer, but this is kind of a separate topic, so I suggest putting it on hold for now for the sake of keeping the discussion more focused.And what about the analogies with other complex primates? [...] — dazed
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.