Aristotle never found the soul in nature. You're just being ridiculous now, comparing finding plants and animals to theorizing a soul.

Sorry, rational science is not positivism. Your disdain for rational science is alarming; you must think angels make airplanes fly.

I recently read an interview where Sheldrake confirmed he was influenced by Bergson.

Bergson's writings pre-dated holographic discoveries but his description of the universe very much foretells holography. Whereas Bohm, Hiley, Talbot, Pribham, and others theorized that the brain was comprised of holographic memory, it was Bergson who intuited that memory could actually be embedded in the fabric of the universe, and described this fabric in such a way that it foretold quantum theory (the famous quantum physicist De Broglie wrote an essay on this).

For the most up-to-date description of Bergson, I find Stephen Robbins' YouTube videos quite illuminating. Once one views the brain as a reconstructive tool to illuminate memory as a TV illuminates broadcasting waves (Sheldrake's metaphor), one can begin to recognize the possibility that memory persists and could possibly reawaken itself as it does every morning when it wakes up.

This is one of several of Robbin's videos.

https://youtu.be/RtuxTXEhj3A

When one views life in this way, and that someone such as Mozart, might be the result of persistent memory over duration (real time) then one might possible apprehend new meaning to life.

You obviously didn't understand my point and start with strawmen and ridicule, so I'll guess I'll leave it there.

Interesting, have to look (or basically listen) to that one.

No, I understood your incorrect point about what i said and positivism. So, the only one strawmanning is you. And I didn't ridicule you; don't be so sensitive.

You're the one expressing Luddite disdain for scientific explanation. So why wouldn't you think angels make airplanes fly?

The ancients thought that soul is what differentiates animate from inanimate. So then a tree, a dog, an insect all have souls.

My understanding is that Plato thought the soul's divine spark lives on, but Aristotle (along with several of the Presocratics) thought the soul dies when the body dies.

The Old Testament doesn't support the immortality of the soul, but several of the Eastern Religions seem to support it.

I like the idea of the soul as an animating force, that which makes something come alive. Loosely, a work of art can have soul, a good meal with friends, music, my dog Sidney, a culture all can have soul as an animating force.

At death, who knows, maybe the spark goes on, but I don't believe it is individuated, even in some religions after death the individual is absorbed in a vision of god.

Its a nice idea Cav, but if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection.

You're right about philosophy of mind physicalism, determinism, & no free will.

But if you're a met

You're right about philosophy of mind

Trying again:

You're right about philosophy of mind Physicalism, determinism, & no free will.

But if you're a metaphysical Physicalist or Materialist, then you're making unnecessary assumptions and accepting unnecessary brute facts.

Under Materialism, reincarnation is out of the question. But Materialism doesn't do well by parsimony.

Without being sure of your metaphysics, reticence is best.

Michael Ossipoff

It is highly unlikely that a concept of "soul" which we have inherited from the infancy of human thinking, is a valuable concept nor is it likely to be true. Such an idea comes from a time when the whole world was thought of as being inhabited by spirits, malicious, benign, and beneficial. The soul was a way to explain death, being an incorporeal and invisible"part" of the body that departs to take the living spirit with it; it made the heart beat, and when that ceased it was taken as the soul descending or ascending according to which set of myths went along with the soul.
Such an idea has no basis in modern thinking or science. It is a theory which does not work; a fantasy.

No, it's rational thinking. According to your faulty logic, science is positivism; it's not.

Also, you need to read Comte, you don't know what positivism is. — Thanatos Sand

I know Comte and what you're arguing is pure positivism. And scientism.

Aristotle never found the soul in nature. You're just being ridiculous now, comparing finding plants and animals to theorizing a soul. — Thanatos Sand

Your missing the point Thanatos. What differentiates theorizing something, from something being found in nature? Suppose you find something in nature, you think it's a rock. Well isn't it a theory which says that it's a "rock"? The point is, that things are named, and there is theory as to how to apply the names to declare that the thing found is best called by that name. So you don't really find a thing with the name "rock" on it, and say "hey look I found a rock", you actually must refer to a theory to back up your claim that the thing you found is a rock. You don't find names in nature, you find nameless things, and use theory to put names to those things.

Consider living things now. Do you agree that there is something called "life"? But have you ever found life? We find all sorts of different living plants, and animals, but we do not find life. It is only theory which tells us that there is something which is called "life", and this theory allows us to distinguish between being alive and being dead. It is the same with "soul", just a different word for the same thing. In theory there is something which is called "the soul", and this theory allows us to distinguish between being alive and being dead.

It is highly unlikely that a concept of "soul" which we have inherited from the infancy of human thinking, is a valuable concept nor is it likely to be true. Such an idea comes from a time when the whole world was thought of as being inhabited by spirits, malicious, benign, and beneficial. — charleton

If there is a concept such as "soul", which has persisted since the infancy of human thinking, why would you think that it is highly unlikely that it is a valuable concept? If a concept comes and goes in a very short period of time, like a flash in the pan, it is obviously not a valuable concept. But if a concept is held by human beings for thousands of years, then quite clearly it is a valuable concept.

If there is a concept such as "soul", which has persisted since the infancy of human thinking, why would you think that it is highly unlikely that it is a valuable concept? If a concept comes and goes in a very short period of time, like a flash in the pan, it is obviously not a valuable concept. But if a concept is held by human beings for thousands of years, then quite clearly it is a valuable concept. — Metaphysician Undercover

One could argue, as does Pinker, that humans have improved over the ages. We don't burn witches today. In fact we don't believe in them. Mostly...

"humans" have not improved. In fact I do not think that the species has evolved towards any more intelligence or capability. What has changed is that in the last handful of generations the population has increased, social density and hence the body of knowledge has been communicated and the sum of human knowledge has evolved. But this only really goes back as far as the invention of the printing press which enabled men of thought to join a community of peers across a whole continent, and now the whole world.
Today people with little thought can communicate with far more efficiency using the Internet, and there is a dissipation of that knowledge, and not all in a good way. Time will only tell if common sense and rationalism can prevail over this new system of communication, or whether we shall enter an idiocracy.

"If there is a concept such as "soul", which has persisted since the infancy of human thinking, why would you think that it is highly unlikely that it is a valuable concept?."
For the same reason that other idiotic ideas such as astrology, fairies and angels are still firmly believed in.
"If a concept comes and goes in a very short period of time, like a flash in the pan, it is obviously not a valuable concept. But if a concept is held by human beings for thousands of years, then quite clearly it is a valuable concept."
The idea of gremlins, fairies and angels are also useful concepts for those without the will to think.
8 of if 10 Americans believe in angels.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/

Today people with little thought can communicate with far more efficiency using the Internet, and there is a dissipation of that knowledge, and not all in a good way. — charleton

... and here we are.

For the same reason that other idiotic ideas such as astrology, fairies and angels are still firmly believed in. — charleton

So do you think that numbers, and mathematical ideas like addition and subtraction, which have been firmly believed in for thousands of years are idiotic as well?

The idea of gremlins, fairies and angels are also useful concepts ... — charleton

What, other than usefulness can remove the label of "idiotic" from a concept, for you? Or is it only the concepts that are useful to you which are not idiotic? We have a concept for people like you, it's "prejudice".

Why wouldn't one believe in angles? We believe in souls don't we?

ts a nice idea Cav, but if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection.

We can pretty much tell animate from inanimate, but we don't know how matter became and continues to become animate, we can't even mimic it (Craig Venter has tried and tried). I lean towards a form of Panpsychism, since as far as I am concerned there is no way mind could have formed except from matter, and I think all matter in the right configuration has the potential for ensoulment.

I know Comte and what you're arguing is pure positivism. And scientism.

You clearly don't know either, since you can't explain in any way how my relying on scientific standards is positivism or scientism, and their not, particularly since I don't reject the humanities at all in my argument.

Using your flawed notions of positivism and scientism, rejecting the concept of angels without scientific evidence--the equivalence of doing the same with the soul--would be positivism and scientism, and it's not. So go back and read Comte. Your knowledge of him is as poor as your reasoning here.

Aristotle never found the soul in nature. You're just being ridiculous now, comparing finding plants and animals to theorizing a soul.
— Thanatos Sand

Your missing the point Thanatos. What differentiates theorizing something, from something being found in nature? Suppose you find something in nature, you think it's a rock. Well isn't it a theory which says that it's a "rock"? The point is, that things are named, and there is theory as to how to apply the names to declare that the thing found is best called by that name. So you don't really find a thing with the name "rock" on it, and say "hey look I found a rock", you actually must refer to a theory to back up your claim that the thing you found is a rock. You don't find names in nature, you find nameless things, and use theory to put names to those things.

No, you're missing the point Meta. A rock is still a physical object that was discovered and named, a soul isn't. So, your comparison is completely nonsensical; Aristotle theorizing a soul he never encountered in the real world is different from a naturalist naming an animal he actually encountered there.

According to your flawed logic, someone coming up with the concept of Santa Claus and naming it would be the same as discovering the Mississippi river and naming it. I hope you see the problem in that.

Consider living things now. Do you agree that there is something called "life"? But have you ever found life? We find all sorts of different living plants, and animals, but we do not find life. It is only theory which tells us that there is something which is called "life", and this theory allows us to distinguish between being alive and being dead. It is the same with "soul", just a different word for the same thing. In theory there is something which is called "the soul", and this theory allows us to distinguish between being alive and being dead.

Again, you show you're wrong because you confuse naming real objects/animals/vegetation with naming concepts one comes up with in their mind like Tolkien's concept of the Orc. You must you think Orcs and Santa Claus really exist in the world then.

Yes, it's me, Thanatos Sand, I lost my password.

↪Thanatos Sand
ts a nice idea Cav, but if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection.


We can pretty much tell animate from inanimate, but we don't know how matter became and continues to become animate, we can't even mimic it (Craig Venter has tried and tried). I lean towards a form of Panpsychism, since as far as I am concerned there is no way mind could have formed except from matter, and I think all matter in the right configuration has the potential for ensoulment.

Sorry, ensoulment has no basis in reality since the a material soul has never been discovered or recorded. It makes as much sense as believing in angels.

Its a nice idea Cav, but if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection. — Thanatos Sand

We know that a certain part of the brain is responsible for language, but we're not capable of finding exactly where the word 'dog' is stored. Does this mean words are not natural?

By the same thinking, the 'soul' could be contained in and generated by the brain, even though it can't be physically located.

Yes, it's me, Thanatos Sand, I lost my password. — John Harris

Well at least we got rid of one idiot! :P >:O

Its a nice idea Cav, but if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection.
— Thanatos Sand

We know that a certain part of the brain is responsible for language, but we're not capable of finding exactly where the word 'dog' is stored. Does this mean words are not natural?

No, not knowing the exact in a particular organ causing a particular effect does not make the cause of that effect supernatural; it makes it natural but not entirely known, like not knowing why we are Gay or Straight doesnt' mean it comes from a supernatural cause.

Imaging a supernatural essence like the soul or a natural soul impossibly avoiding all detection is just fantasizing as one fantasizes Angels or Demons. Using your faulty logic, they could be there too.

Yes, it's me, Thanatos Sand, I lost my password.
— John Harris

Well at least we got rid of one idiot!

I've made clear I'm no idiot, Cashkev, unlike you trying to compensate for your poor education and intelligence with your hilarious pretentious posts like the one I just debunked...:)

Imaging a supernatural essence like the soul or a natural soul impossibly avoiding all detection is just fantasizing as one fantasizes Angels or Demons. Using your faulty logic, they could be there too. — John Harris

Notice that I put 'soul' in quotation marks. When I say 'soul', I am referring to the sense of being more than just an animal, due to our higher level of intelligence. I don't think there is any force separate from our biological structures, but I can see how the sense of a soul could be an amalgamation of inputs from various parts of the brain, making it seem very real.

Imaging a supernatural essence like the soul or a natural soul impossibly avoiding all detection is just fantasizing as one fantasizes Angels or Demons. Using your faulty logic, they could be there too.
— John Harris

Notice that I put 'soul' in quotation marks. When I say 'soul', I am referring to the sense of being more than just an animal, due to our higher level of intelligence. I don't think there is any force separate from our biological structures, but I can see how the sense of a soul could be an amalgamation of inputs from various parts of the brain, making it seem very real.

Sorry, you compared the soul to the part of our brain that generates language, a physical part of the brain, so you did argue the soul as something that could be found.

But f you're talking about the concept "soul" coming from an amalgamation of inputs from the various parts of the brain, then you are correctly rendering it to a concept, no more real than "God,' "Satan" or "the Easter Bunny.

@John Harris I don't believe in souls, but someone could argue that they are undetectable, just like the word 'dog' is undetectable in the brain.

I don't believe in souls, but someone could argue that they are undetectable, just like the word 'dog' is undetectable in the brain.

Words aren't stored in any one singular part of the brain, and no neurologist claims that. So, that comparison doesn't work.

However, the soul has not only shown no physical locus, it has shown no physical effect either. Again, it makes the soul as "natural" as angels or demons.