The idea to create this topic came from reading the OP of this thread.
After reading it, I find it amazing that people take for granted, that humans have ''souls'', without actually delving deeper into it:
The idea that man is made of both matter and something insubstantial has been around for thousands of years. Since the advent of religion, and the concept of an afterlife, people have held the belief that there is a physical and non physical aspect to each and every person - dualism. Despite the fact that it is riddled with fallacies, more people seem to believe in dualism than monoism, despite the fact that the latter is more supported by logic.
The first problem with dualism is the interface between the two forms of existence (physical and non physical.)
Dualism presupposes that a connection exists between the non physical mind and the physical brain and body. It does not, however explain in any way how this connection exists, or in which state this connection exists.
The idea that there is a connection between the physical and non physical relies on one of two fallacies.
Firstly, that there is a third state of being, somewhere in between physical and non physical which obviously moves away from the idea of dualism by creating a third state of being. Logically however, we must then create more states of being to connect the new state of being to the original states, andthen continue this pattern ad infinitum for the infinite amount of states that will eventually occur.
This idea falls prey to the second fallacy of the dualistic connection, being that if there is a connection between these two states of existence, it must be either physical or non physical, which then fails to accomplish any sort of connection, (or a non physical connection) to connect the physical existence to the non physical existence, nothing is being accomplished, and no connection is being established. Once we accept this second fallacy we require a new connection between this physical connection and non physical existence, and the fallacy comes full circle, returning to the original goal. The idea that any connection can exist between the physical and non physical presupposes either a third form of existence, or a non existent connection, and therefore, the idea of a connection between the physical and non physical fails.
Now that it is apparent that there can be no connection between the physical and the non physical existences, and we are limited to our physical experiences for our data and input, how can we have any knowledge or data about this non physical existence? It is obvious, of course, that we are limited to our physical experiences for our data and input, as all of our senses are physically based. If we have no real knowledge of the non physical existence, we cannot justify anything about such an existence. Because we have no true knowledge about a non physical existence, dualism is shown again to be intrinsically flawed.
A common argument for dualism consists of the idea that the mind and body, an admittedly physical entity, can continue to exist without the ''life'' of the mind, and therefore they are two different types of existence. Unfortunately, because we have no real way to know about the non physical existence, we have no way to truly tell if the mind has died. Aside from this, brain death does not necessarily constitute mind death either, in the dualistic view. Because of this, the argument, that the body can exist without the mind is not necessarily true, as we have no way to know when the mind has died, and brain death does not necessarily equate to mind death. Therefore the argument that dualism is logically consistent because the body can live without the mind and thus they are two separate things, fails.
I can conceive of a program as being a separate entity from the computer it's running on, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong about it. On a physical level, the program does, in fact, exist, as a series of electrical signals in the circuitry of the computer it's running on. It's not floating out in an imaginary incorporeal space (or rather there's no reason to believe that it is).
I like this example. If I understand correctly, you're saying that just because two things can be distinct doesn't mean one is incorporeal. They can both be physical. This is a tough analogy to drive home, but it certainly does seem the program is something distinctly different from the computer. Let's say the program is designed to make different colored shapes appear on your screen. The program will still have this design and exist - even if it's not installed in a computer. I can ask, what's that thing? Oh, it's a program to do such and such. And we can have this conversation even if the program is uninstalled. On the other side, the computer is still a computer even if it doesn't have this program installed. I might be missing the force of the analogy, if I am, then I apologize. But from what I'm understanding now, it seems to support the dualist theory rather than refute it.
HEre's proof that you do indeed have a soul. Look at it this way have you ever remembered something that you Haven't done in this life, but for this to be proof then you also got to understand reincarnation
HEre's proof that you do indeed have a soul. Look at it this way have you ever remembered something that you Haven't done in this life, but for this to be proof then you also got to understand reincarnation
This can be to easily regarded as false memory to be considered reliable proof.
HEre's proof that you do indeed have a soul. Look at it this way have you ever remembered something that you Haven't done in this life, but for this to be proof then you also got to understand reincarnation
another point i'd like to make is that if you didn't have a soul/spirit then how can it be broken?
I can't tell if you're being serious or not. As for your "spirit being broken", this is just a saying. Nothing actually "breaks" inside of you. Even those who accept the idea of a soul would say that it can't have physical harm done to it - like being broken.
As for your first point, if you're arguing that memories are things you've experienced and they say that you have memories of things you haven't done, this is clearly a contradiction. Not only is this not the standard definition of a memory, but taking your definition, then things you haven't done wouldn't be memories at all. I don't know what they'd be, but unless you want a contradiction, you'd better think of something else to call them.
I might be missing the force of the analogy, if I am, then I apologize. But from what I'm understanding now, it seems to support the dualist theory rather than refute it.
My point was that the conceivability argument doesn't seem to make sense. Just becaue I can conceive of two things as separate entities, doesn't mean they are separate entities, since a program is inherently inseparable from some sort of hardware for it to run on.
It just seems that the conceivability argument amounts to nothing more than ''anything I can imagine must be true''.
since a program is inherently inseparable from some sort of hardware for it to run on.
But you can go out and buy World of Warcraft or whatever right now and it's not installed on a computer. Also keep in mind the dualist can still maintain that the mind must be present only when a brain is. It's just that they're not both physical.
Speaking on terms of the mind, then obviously thoughts are a separate entity because thoughts are non-physical, having no mass and taking up no space, whereas the body does have mass and does take u space. Thoughts are not matter and are therefore not corporeal or physical, so yes parts of the mind could be considered to be nonphysical, though still the physical is important to the non.
Thoughts are not matter and are therefore not corporeal or physical, so yes parts of the mind could be considered to be nonphysical, though still the physical is important to the non.
Thoughts do have a base physical component - electrical impulses.
Also keep in mind the dualist can still maintain that the mind must be present only when a brain is. It's just that they're not both physical.
I believe I addressed this line of argument here in my OP.
''A common argument for dualism consists of the idea that the mind and body, an admittedly physical entity, can continue to exist without the ''life'' of the mind, and therefore they are two different types of existence. Unfortunately, because we have no real way to know about the non physical existence, we have no way to truly tell if the mind has died. Aside from this, brain death does not necessarily constitute mind death either, in the dualistic view. Because of this, the argument, that the body can exist without the mind is not necessarily true, as we have no way to know when the mind has died, and brain death does not necessarily equate to mind death. Therefore the argument that dualism is logically consistent because the body can live without the mind and thus they are two separate things, fails.''
I believe I addressed this line of argument here in my OP.
I'm actually suggesting the opposite - that dualists don't have to maintain that the mind can exist without the body. A dualist can go along with the idea that the mind cannot exist without a functioning brain. Much like in your program analogy, where a program cannot exist without a computer to run it (although I still contend that a computer program can exist without a computer to run it). Let's face it. Dualism is unlikely - in fact it's pretty implausible. All I'm trying to show is that it can't be defeated on logical grounds alone. And implausibility is in no way a defeater of arguments. I mean, quantum physics would seem absolutely bonkers to a physicist just a few decades ago.
But you can go out and buy World of Warcraft or whatever right now and it's not installed on a computer. Also keep in mind the dualist can still maintain that the mind must be present only when a brain is. It's just that they're not both physical.
It seems to me, using the analogy, that you it's more of a one way relationship. You can have a computer without software, or a big pulsing bag of meat with no real ''mind'' to speak of.
I hadn't really thought about that. Personally, I think that if a brain is properly functioning, it will result in the presence of a mind. But I don't think I have a good argument for this, it just seems to me to be intuitively true. I would completely agree that without a brain, there is no mind. But I don't think we can have a properly functioning brain without a mind. There can be a "big pulsing bag of meat with no real 'mind' to speak of" in cases of brain death, but then this isn't a properly functioning brain. And I don't think this view is incompatible with dualism, but this is all on initial introspection.
And I don't think this view is incompatible with dualism, but this is all on initial introspection.
Brain death is the brain not functioning properly on a physical level. However if we assume that the brain cannot function properly without the mind, then the mind must be derived from the physical brain, because as the brain dies, then so does the mind.
What I'm trying to say is that if a physical malfunction in the brain causes the mind to be destroyed, then doesn't that indicate that the mind is a physical entity, not a non physical one?
The only argument I can see against this from a dualist perspective is that the brain and the mind are linked, and therefore, if one is damaged/destroyed, so is the other. However that would be assuming that a connection can indeed exist between the two, which is, as we have already discussed, a dubious assertion.
However that would be assuming that a connection can indeed exist between the two, which is, as we have already discussed, a dubious assertion.
This is an excellent point, and you've definitely backed me into a corner. I don't see how a contemporary dualist can maintain the independence of the mind, but maybe it's necessary. I wonder, though... What if the connection between the brain and the mind is on a quantum level? This would explain the physical indeterminacy between the mental and physical while still allowing for a highly probabilistic connection between the two. So if I think "I want to raise my arm," there is a very high probability that my arm will raise. Since quantum particles can fluctuate between states, this might be a very attractive route for the dualist. It would also allow the physical to supervene over the mental, which would explain things like seizures and brain death. I know this quantum theory stuff I've suggested is a lot of fluff. Honestly, I don't know enough about quantum physics to give a good argument. But I think this might be the most intuitively plausible route for the dualist to take.
