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 — ucarr

Sorry for the late response. I'm not sure what you're asking me here. All of those things are reactions of your brain. Neuroscience doesn't deny the powerful feelings we have about the world such as purpose and love. Its just that's the source of where it all comes from, and is not an ethereal ghost.

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.

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?

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

What are those statements (link)?

↪RussellA

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

Interesting exchange. How do you answer those questions?

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

I don't see why not. I believe emotional and general language is extremely useful and enriching as long as it does not supersede the physical reality underneath it all. At the end of the day talking about ourselves as brains may not be nearly as exciting or motivating as talking about "the human spirit" or "the soul of humanity". Essences capture feelings that objects do not.

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

What are those statements (link)? — 180 Proof

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

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

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.

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.

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

Yes. — ucarr

Panpsychism?

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.

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

I quoted your words.

Common sense.

It's also "common sense" that the Earth is flat and the Sun rises and sets, all swans are white and hammers always fall faster than feathers, etc.

five big questions — ucarr

Invaluable to me in sorting out my own ideas.

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. — ucarr

I'm wavering between panprotopsychism and neutral monism.

Donovan Wishon in his article Panpsychism, Panprotopsychism, and Neutral Monism
describes panpsychism, panprotopsychism and neutral monism as: "The first is panpsychism, which is the doctrine that mind is a fundamental and pervasive feature of the universe. The second is panprotopsychism, which is the doctrine that 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 third is 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."

But I also believe in the Mysterianism of Colin McGinn, in that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be resolved by humans.

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

For me it is more than faith, where faith is a strong belief, in that I am absolutely certain that I am conscious. I know without doubt that I am conscious. From then on it gets more complicated.

There are different levels of knowledge, in that I can know I'm conscious without knowing why. I can know the form of an object without knowing its content, as Pandora knew the form of the large storage jar without knowing the curses it held within it

I am sure that at the heart of the hard problem of consciousness is the Binding Problem, or in Kant's terms, the unity of perception. Consciousness is unknowable because there is nothing else in our experience that enables us to understand how a disparate set of parts can be perceived as a unified whole. We have no key to explaining the gestalt property of consciousness, whereby a perceived object or event is dynamically bound together from its properties into a unified mental representation. For example, our representation of a tree can be expressed in neural activity that is widely distributed through the cortex. Objects such as trees can only be represented in the brain by many neurons spatially separate, yet we are conscious of the tree as a unified whole at one instant of time. The mystery reduces to that of how can one be conscious of a unified whole at one instant in time that is made up of parts that are spatially separate.

I don't know what the answer is, but I feel the answer must avoid the pseudoscience of Quantum Mysticism, those metaphysical beliefs that seek to relate quantum mechanics to all and sundry problems, whether consciousness, intelligence, the spiritual or the mystical.

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. — ucarr

I believe in the principle of Laplace's Demon, such that if a demon knows the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe, their past and future values can be calculated from the laws of classical mechanics.

However in principle, such a calculation would be to all intents and purposes impossible because of what we know from chaos theory, whereby even small changes to a complex system can give rise to extreme consequences. Given the start position of a complex system, if we wanted to predict a distant future, the calculation would probably have to account for differences in position of the order of the planck length.

As regards free will, there are some things about which I have no choice, such as eating, though I do have the choice as to what I eat, pasta or pizza. On the one hand, intellectually I believe that the world is determined, yet on the other hand, viscerally, I believe I have free will.

How to resolve such a contradiction. Sean Carroll proposes Poetic Naturalism. As we understand through metaphor, Big Bang Theory, Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, Universal Law of Gravitation, etc, Carroll's approach is effectively the use of different metaphors for different domains of knowledge. When talking about the physical world we use the metaphor determinism, when talking about the world of the mind we use the metaphor free will. In this sense, talk about a deterministic world in which we have free will is not contradictory, as such terms are metaphors. In fact, it could be argued that all our understanding is metaphorical, in that all language is fundamentally metaphorical.

your answer says emergence of life from fundamental physical entities is mysterious. — ucarr

Yes, Colin McGinn's Mysterianism. As a cat, dog or donkey could never understand the working of the European Commission, humans can never understand the nature of consciousness (in fact, probably an easier problem that understanding the workings of the European Commission). As Sean Carroll suggests, perhaps understanding requires a change in our frame of reference. The fundamental problem is that in order for humans to understand consciousness, consciousness need to understand itself. Not a new idea, as "know thyself" is one of the three Delphic maxims inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.

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?

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

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.

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

No.

Do you categorically reject common sense?

No.

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

Are "all doors" actually locked?

Are "all doors" actually locked? — 180 Proof

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

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:

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

:smile: There are only forks! :lol:

... in chess and in the road. :wink:

... in chess and in the road — 180 Proof

Précisément!

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.”

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.' — ucarr

:death: :flower:

:up: Allahu Akbar! El Rachum!

I hope we'll dialogue again. — ucarr

:grin: