but 'soul/spirit' are misunderstandings: illusions within the illusion, about what the illusion might be. — ENOAH

Surely the concepts of souls / spirits have existed for thousands of years. If you are religious believing in after life, resurrection or the heavenly world and God, wouldn't soul be the essential being for the belief?

Bodies get old and die through time. Minds die too. But souls supposed to survive after death to be identified for what the being had done, and how it lived to be placed in the different parts of the heavenly world, or the hell. To be able to keep continue the life after death according to the holy scriptures.

Without soul, the old body disintegrated, and mind evaporated, the system wouldn't work, or wouldn't make sense.

Does it imply that our perceptions are not direct? Could there be other factors involved in perception apart from the the object of perception, sensory organs, memories and experiences?

They're the sort of thing that we might find ourselves experiencing, especially if you lead a life that often experiences new places. One would expect to dream of experiencing yet more new things. — noAxioms

In my dream one night, I was flying a light airplane over the night sea. In real life, I don't know how to fly airplane, and never plan to learn to fly either. That dream was something that I would never experience or wish in my life time in real life.

Funny, but I have little recall of explicit dreams of sounds. — noAxioms

Could sounds in dreams might interrupt the dream, and make the dreamer wake up from sleep, therefore you subconsciously switch the volume off during dreaming?

We apply those terms to the nonphysical, 'mental' processes which ultimately cause/include the illusion of being, although they are actually fleeting and empty processes. — ENOAH

Do you mean then souls / spirits are something that we apply to the illusion of being? That sounds like souls / spirits are illusions.

Can't you see Madonna in the eyes and a nose strikingly similar to that of Taylor Swift?

Yes, we are both perceiving an object that doesn't exist. — RussellA

No, I cannot see M or TS in there at all, but then I have never looked at their facial features of the eyes and nose closely before. I tend to look at and identify them with the whole face, hair style and what they wear rather than eyes or nose. You created the image, hence the image exists.

That's a very creative image. But I don't see TS and Madonna in it at all.

I would only consider the third to be mind (a thing unique to humans). The first two, shared with animals, forms organic consciousness and provides the organic infrastructure for human mind. Within the latter you might find stages/states but we just make those up as part of the processes of its operating. — ENOAH

I know body exists confirmed by the mental (perception and thoughts - "Here is a hand. Here is another hand. I have two hands."). But souls? How do you prove souls exist?

But my point is that if I dream about the past, this is not necessarily leading me to a deception. So, we have to be careful of using these frames as a notion of reality. — javi2541997

Definitely not.   You have your memory to back up your dreams have factual coherence from the past.
Time and space are regarded as external entities by scientists.  But your point seems to indicate they can be internal (mental) entities private to you.  Could it be related to Kant?

One explanation for this is that the whole image in a dream is not an exact image from memory. That image could be amalgamation of several images. For example, you subconsciously take different parts of a face from several people that you know and blend it all up, resulting with a new face that you've never seen before. — night912

Can different images be amalgamated into totally different another image? Who do you get if you amalgamate images of Elon Musk with Bill Gates, Taylor Swift and Madonna? Why would you do that?

It is not desirable to be 100% formal logic because what is so may not be so tomorrow and our thinking needs to be flexible. We need to be creative. We need to think about what is and what can be. Humans have taken creative thinking and created their own reality. This is beyond what animals do. — Athena

No one was suggesting to be 100% formal logic, Formal logic is a subject which studies propositional validities, which can aid human thoughts and scientific theories to be more rational.

Hume's criticism was aimed at the scholastic concept of some power, hidden from our experience, was what enable to first billiard ball to make the second billiard ball move. — Ludwig V

Didn't he say, it is the constant conjunction of the one event followed by the other, which gives us the idea of cause effect?

Asking what rational ground we have for that is asking for a rational ground for relying on rational grounds. — Ludwig V

Really? Could you come up with an example? Much of the math, science and logic are based on formulating proofs from the valid premises based on the rational ground, and we do accept them when it makes sense.

I left out the conditional "if formal logic is your standard of rationality" and qualified "the whole of humanity" to "almost the whole of humanity". — Ludwig V

Formal logic deals with the propositions for their validities. Suggesting formal logic as your standard of rationality sounded very odd even as a conditional comment.

How about when we perceive silence, emptiness in space or time passing? The objects of our perception actually don't exist in material level. However, we still perceive them.

Dreams are a memory of past visual events being sorted through. A person born blind doesn't visually dream, because they have no memory of anything visual.
And by blind, I mean completely blind, not merely legally blind. — Philosophim

Interesting point. But if the images in dreams are from the memories, why some folks see images that they have never come across in their lives, or meet people they cannot recognise and never met, or go to the places they have never been in their whole lives before?

From my pespective:
1. They are the same, there is no real duality. We have used soul and spirit to identify that which we have misperceived to be a being distinct from the body. — ENOAH

But aren't there different stages in mind? From very simple perceptual mental state of the simple living animals to more complex mental states of the social animals, and then highly complicated and sophisticated mental states of humans, they seem all different in complexity and capabilities.

And even in humans, we can differentiate different types of mind sets of people depending on who they are, what social background they are coming from, or what religious background they come from, and what types of beliefs they have, they would have different states of minds. Some folks believe they have souls, and some would totally deny existence of souls.

Souls have long history in human cultures and studies, which seems suggest its relationship with the religious beliefs and concepts. Whereas mental is the state of mind which is the basic functions of the brain of all living organism.

however, to interpret "demonstrative" as meaning conclusive and hence logical, in the strict sense. This is usually taken to mean sound by the standards of formal logic. Which makes almost the whole of humanity irrational. — Ludwig V

Scientific principles and theories require justification and proofs backed by demonstrative argument. I am not sure what you mean by the standards of formal logic, which makes the whole humanity irrational. Why would formal logic make the whole humanity irrational? Formal logic is another area of academic subjects which enables human reasoning more rational.

Well, he didn't say exactly that. But the point that is usually made is that inductive reasoning can be wrong - which doesn't necessarily mean that it is irrational. Hume made two points in the light of his argument. The first was that we are going to go on using it even though it may be wrong and the second was that it was as much of a proof as you will ever get of how the world works, and even ends up (in the section on miracles) calling it a "proof, whole and entire". — Ludwig V

You got it wrong again. Hume was not concerned on the fact that inductive reasoning can be wrong. What he was saying was that, "there can be no demonstrative arguments to prove, that those instances, of which we have had no experience, resemble those, of which we have had experience." (A Treatise, Hume).

You have been seeing the train arriving at the train station at 7:00 every morning for last x number of years. That does not logically warrants you to expect the train will arrive at 7:00 next morning. There is "no demonstrative arguments to prove."

It is not about right or wrong on the inductive reasoning, but isn't it about lack of logical or rational ground in the reasoning Hume was pointing out?

I agree, except that, if the soul part--call it, also, the 'mental'--is not real, but only perceived (for several reasons) to be real; if the mental is 'actually' a system of codes to which the body responds with feelings and action (and only the latter is real, albeit not in a form we are familiar with, i.e., not narrative, and so, necessarilyoverlookedby the narrative); if the narrative form of that code, the part to which we desperately attach, is not real, then it can be acknowledged as 'other' than the body, to exist, and still, it can be eliminated from that category we think of as 'real.' — ENOAH

I have two questions on this post.

1. Are mental and soul different? How are they different?
2. What do you mean by "we think of as real"? What is real?

I see. The only knowledge is scientific knowledge, which excludes second-hand knowledge. But science is only possible because research starts on the basis of the results of previous research, and no-one is expected to repeat all that work for themselves. Newton standing on the shoulders of giants. Moreover, in order to do experiments, read texts, discuss ideas and results, they have to rely on common sense and common knowledge. — Ludwig V

If Newton had been observing the apples falling from the trees to the ground without the scientific discovery, then it would have been just described as daily perception of an ordinary bloke. But he discovered the scientific principle from the observation, which made into the history.

The same could apply to your case. If you had discovered some ground breaking new scientific principle such as a possibility of time travel or something like that, from your observation of the train arriving at 7:00 everyday to your station platform, then it would have been a case of inductive reasoning. However, only thing you have observed in that exercise was that train arrives at 7:00 every day to your platform, which is just a trivial part of daily life of an ordinary bloke. Would anyone class the case as a rational thinking based on the inductive reasoning? I doubt it.

Inductive reasoning is a scientific method of applying our reasoning in forming the principles and theories from the observations, not daily ordinary habitual perceptions of general public.

I have caught the 7:00 train every working day for the last 5 years. Standing on the platform at 6:55, I notice the signal changing. I have noticed that same event every time I have caught the train in the past. I expect the train to arrive shortly. I think that's inductive reasoning. — Ludwig V

Yes, it is an inductive reasoning. You have your knowledge based on your past observations on the events.

Yes, I do have blind faith in inductive reasoning, as Hume noticed. One has to start somewhere. One also has to risk being wrong in order to be right. — Ludwig V

Hume said that inductive reasoning can be irrational. Therefore your reasoning on the train arrival time could be irrational.

Do you mean something like?
How did you know the train was coming at 12:00?
Because the company's web-site said so.
Why do you believe what the company's web-site says?
Because it is almost always accurate.
Why do you believe it is almost always accurate?
Because I and many others have used it in the past.
Why do you believe that its accuracy in the past means that it is accurate now?.
Because I am rational.
Why are you rational?
Because it is the best way to get to the truth.
Why is it the best way to get to the truth?
?
All justifications end in "groundless grounds". — Ludwig V

It sounds like you are just checking and confirming with yourself what you see on the web site.
You may think that your blind faith of the accuracy of the web site is based on the past record of the accuracy on the information of the website, therefore you were doing an inductive reasoning. But it is still a blind faith on the info. because you have not made any scientific observations on the past events. Plus there is nothing scientific about the accuracy of the train time shown on the website, why it has to be the info, and not otherwise. There is nothing to think any further, why the info has the contents it has apart from it is just there for you to see.

Plus there are many possible chance the web site info might not be correct. Therefore it is not a rational thinking. It is just daily habitual acts of reading and confirming the info. There is nothing rational thinking involved in that process.

I was taught to drive a car. Hence, I can drive a car.
I was taught to think rationally. Hence, I can think rationally.
I would be grateful if you would explain to me what you mean by "ground". — Ludwig V

I have an impression that you are in confusion between skills, capabilities in problem solving with rational thinking.

Ground for rational thinking is, when you are faced with question to justify why your beliefs or thoughts were rational. You should be able to give explanation on your thoughts or beliefs in logical and objective way. If it was rational to you, then it must be rational to the whole universe. Not just to you. That is what being rational means.

I am looking forward to see what you might have to say in reply to Patterner's question. — Ludwig V

I presume my replies above also answers to Patterner's question.

The ground for my rational thinking or beliefs is the training and education that I got in my youth. — Ludwig V

Sorry I don't see a logical link between the ground for your rational thinking or beliefs and the training and education in your youth. Could you elaborate further?

I did say explicitly

on the company web-site (which I have chosen because there is good reason to trust it) — Ludwig V — Ludwig V

Do you trust everything you see on the web site? Trusting whatever you see on the websites has nothing to do with being rational?

If I look up the time of the next train on the company web-site (which I have chosen because there is good reason to trust it) and tell everyone that the next train is at 12:00 and the next train is at 12:00, I would claim that I knew the next train was at 12:00 and deny that I'm just parroting. — Ludwig V

You have been able to access the internet and able to check the train time. Somehow it doesn't give impression you were thinking rationally for that act. From the statement, you are just a bloke who can access the internet homepage, get on to the train company web site, and check the time for the train, which is an act of typical ordinary people.

You still haven't provided the ground for your rational thinking or beliefs, if you had one.

"ground" is a bit vague. I hope you mean "justification". I notice you include explanations in your list. I'm especially happy with that. — Ludwig V

Why is "ground" vague? Why does it have to be "justification"?

I don't see what your problem is. If my question is "Why can't S tell red from green?", I will want to work out my answer rationally, because that guarantees that my answer will be reliably correct. — Ludwig V

I don't have problem. You seem to have. I am just pointing out your example is not reflecting what rational thinking is. When you are asked, "Why can't S tell red from green?", if you explained the reason is S is colour blind, then your answer is based on your guessing, or just parroting what you read or heard from other sources, not from your rational thinking.

You explanation must be based on either from deductive or inductive reasoning for it to be qualified as a rational thinking. Not just because you explained something based on your guessing or parroting what you have heard or read from other sources.

Contrast to your example, my answer to the question how do you know it is autumn, because I see the leaves are falling from all the trees, is based on my previous observation that whenever leaves were falling from all the trees, it was autumn, which is an inductive reasoning, hence it is a rational thinking.

Nothing at all. One old, uninteresting point is that concepts are formed from sensory input, not independently. — Vera Mont

So how does that point relate to your stance that animals are able to do rational thinking?

I agree with that. I was thinking, however, that deciding what the physical explanation is would be applying rationality. — Ludwig V

I am not sure if deciding what physical explanation is applying rationality. Reasoning is either deductive or inductive reasoning. Deduction infers from the valid premises to the valid conclusions such as A > B, B >C therefore A>C. All men is mortal, Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Induction is reasoning which infers the future case from the observed previous cases such as Sun have risen from the east. The sun rises from the east. Therefore sun will rise from the east.

Reasoning yields new knowledge or conclusion from the premises or observations. Reasoning can be ground for the actions, speakings, beliefs, knowledge and explanations. But reasoning itself is not explanations or beliefs or actions. You seem to be still in confusion telling the difference between reasoning and intelligence (or knowledge).

But the subject matter one thinks about has to be collected through sensory data processing before one can formulate any concepts. — Vera Mont

Sure. But it lacks any meaningful point in the discussion for the topic rational beings and rational thinking. What is there to dispute or be surprised in that? It is like saying, if you wore sunglasses, then the whole world will appear darker to you.

It is not talking anything about rational beings or thinking, but it is just a description of a obvious mechanism of perception, that if you are lacking something in your retina, you cannot see things in proper way. If a being lacks sensory organs, then it cannot form any concepts. What is new or interesting?

But sometimes we find ourselves with incompatible beliefs, or simply confused. Then we start asking questions, making diagnoses; very often, but not always we can resolve the situation and then we turn on the perceiver and conclude that there is something wrong or at least different going on - colour-blindness, astigmatism, etc. I realize that's very vague, but I'm gesturing towards all that, rather than trying to describe it. — Ludwig V

In case of mysterious or abnormal visual perception case, you would try to resort to the biological or psychological probes and explanation in clarifying the problems, rather than rationalisation. Rational thinking and reasoning takes place in conceptual level, not physical or biological level. You wouldn't get much progress or meaningful conclusion bringing in rational thinking into your abnormal perception due to colour blindness or astigmatism.

That works. You want to hog a faculty all to yourself, just categorize it as the thing only you have. — Vera Mont

No matter how different each and everyone's thinking processes and contents are, we must allow the freedom of thinking, must'n we? That is also a rational thinking. :wink:

While we're at it, I am not a soul, and I am not my brain. I am a whole, conscious, physical unit. — Kurt Keefner

But can you be conscious without your body? Isn't body the precondition for being conscious?

OK. So believing what they saw and reporting that when asked doesn't involve reasoning. But reasoning can come into it when they are asked to justify (give reasons for believing) their belief that what they say did happen. Is it only after the justification has been provided that it is rational for them to believe what they saw? — Ludwig V

I have never heard of anyone trying to justify what they saw. One can confirm what one saw. But usually one doesn't justify what one saw. One justifies what one believes, said, done and think, but not one saw, smelt, felt, drank, ate or heard.

I don't really see the difference between discussing whether animals are rational and discussing whether my belief that animals are rational is rational. Of course, there is a third possibility that my belief that animals are rational may be the result of a valid argument based on false premisses. Is that what you are suggesting? — Ludwig V

Think whatever you like, but if you think animals are rational, then we are not talking in the same category of reason. In my book, if you think animals are rational, then you could be a zoologist, scientist, social activist. poet, novelist, religious cult member or a folk in the pub, but not a philosopher.

Animals could be intelligent, but they are not rational. Rational beings ask questions, reflects, and are able to criticise and analyze. Is any animal capable of these mental activities apart from humans? In that regard, not even every humans are rational.

Please think about Hegel's saying "The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel Philosophy of Right. 1820.

What did he mean by that? He didn't mean to say anything about the owl in actuality. He meant to say the metaphor about reason and philosophy.

Perhaps I should re-phrase my answer.
Are you saying that when someone says that they saw X get out of the car, even though they may not have articulated any rationale for believing what they saw at the time, we can later on ask questions and elicit a rationale? — Ludwig V

That has nothing to do with rationalising. That is just a perception. Perception and recalling what they saw when asked, is not reasoning.

Reasoning takes place when thinking takes place on why and how, and being able to logically and objectively summarising the grounds for the perception, beliefs, actions or propositions.

Are you concerned about the trilemma argument that justifications must either be repeated indefinitely, or become circular or must end arbitrarily, with grounds that have no further grounding?
It's a fairly standard issue. But you are free to ignore that question if you find it annoying. — Ludwig V

Every beliefs, actions, speaking and perception is one time only in the path of time, therefore they are unique. There is no repeat or going circular in reasoning, unless you are talking about the Sun rising every morning. Even rising of the sun is unique events because it takes place in the path of unique time.
No I didn't find anything annoying. I was just trying clarify the points using reasoning.

I don't believe that when we come to the rationality of creatures that do not have language as we know it, the only way to attribute reasons for their behaviour is guessing. But I wanted also to recognize that the process was more difficult and less certain than it is when we are dealing with someone who can explain their reasons. — Ludwig V

The agents with no or little linguistic ability is not the point of the topic. They are not the subject of reasoning. They are objects of reasoning. We have been talking about whether your thoughts and comments on them are rational. Not them.

What bothers me is the looming trilemma, that either that process can be repeated indefinitely, or it must become circular or it must end arbitrarily, with grounds that have no further grounding. — Ludwig V

Once ground for being rational for the topic or issue has been put forward, you either accept it as rational or discard it as irrational. Why do you want to go on circular?

When we are dealing with animals (or small children, for that matter), we can't. Then we have to supply the rationale and that's very tricky. There may be no way to satisfactorily answer the question. We can't even conclude that the belief was irrational. — Ludwig V

Could you not have said that you were just guessing on the behavior or actions of the animals or children as intelligent or dumb, rather than trying to pretend, make out or assume that they were rational or irrational?

You didn't quite say that. — Ludwig V

I was trying to give you a simple example of even a simplest most basic daily life knowledge has a ground to be rational when examined.

On the other hand, you could be talking about the case when I attribute knowledge to someone else. That is indeed a bit different. But there are still simple cases and more complex ones. In a simple case, I know the person quite well and know that they are in a position to know and are reliable, and then I will say just that. — Ludwig V

I am still not sure what your exact point is. You cannot attribute being rational to someone or something just because you know what type of the person is, or what the thing does. Being rational means that belief, knowledge, perception or action, or proposition can demonstrate in objective manner the ground for being rational when examined or reflected back.

But so far as the question "How do you know" goes, I don't see the difference between your simple case and your "other cases". — Ludwig V

Could you elaborate further on what you mean by that? My point was that being rational must be able to be verified, justified and approved to be so. You cannot call something or someone being rational just because someone went to a shop, or a dog opened the door or hawk hunted his meal. That sounds like someone not understanding what being rational means, but just misusing the term.