A person appears to be something more in reality than physical brain processes, since it has a soul. The soul appears to be a real, nonmaterial phenomena distinct from the brain and the world's physical elements.
Since the soul is immaterial, to know it directly might be possible only intuitively and by experience. That is, a subject and person can know that he/she himself/herself is a subject and has a soul, but this fact might not be absolutely provable to others outside his/her body. but maybe not absolutely provable conclusively to others. My own experience of consciously looking out at the world is not one that I can directly share with others. From the POV of others outside the subject's body, the subject could be a well-made automaton, a dream, a fictional character.
The Huffington Post mentions some definitions of the soul:
http://ift.tt/2Ctso8Q
:ghost:
It looks to me that the best way to describe the issue of the soul is by discussing issues of my consciousness and how it relates to me as a subject, that is, a being aware that it is observing the world. It directly appears to me that I am or have a soul looking out from my body at the world and at my body. :boxedin:
This description or evidence involves a self-experience that both I the writer and you the reader have, and the full meaning of word "I" as a subject.
Descartes made the famous statement using consciousness to prove his own real existence: "I think therefore I am". The process of the observer recognizing that he is thinking points to the riddle of whether this observer ultimately is anything more than the physical components involved in the computation.
Is my existence an illusion and all that is really occurring with "me" is a mass of molecules and electrons undergoing physical processes? Are "I" and "you" just shorthand for "these masses of chemicals and cells" hitting keyboards?
When a person says “I like this color”, what does the person mean by “I”? By “I”, he/she doesn’t mean his/her physical brain. The physical brain could be addicted to a chemical, love it and find it wonderful. But one can still rightly say “I hate this chemical, it’s so addicting". Likewise, one can conceive of his/her own life outside his/her physical death, therefore conceptually a person and his/her soul is not the same thing as his/her physical body.
A major aspect of the experience of consciousness is the reality of the experience and the realistic feelings associated with it. It's one thing for a subject to imagine that the subject or another person experiences something, but another phenomena to experience it directly. The same is true with my consciousness. I "know" directly that I exist in the full experiential sense of the words "I and me", and this knowledge is in a manner that I cannot directly exhibit or prove to you.
This life experience rests on a layer that might not be explainable in purely materialistic terms. Materialistic science cannot fully make sense of questions like "Why am I me experiencing what I am in this body, and not you experiencing what you are in your body?" If "I" am nothing more than atoms and chemicals and a pattern of behavior formed solely by physical experiences, the question doesn't make sense. But if I have a soul, then why could at least understand the question why "I" as a subject am not directly experiencing what you are in your body. It alludes to a deeper common human sense, where I, my soul, am experiencing my body at this moment.
I can try to show you what I mean: Not only does my brain detect that it is computing and create brain memories that has detected this, and not only does the brain recognize that it has recognized that it computes, but there is a subject who itself observes the brain undergoing consciousness. There is a subject experiencing the brain's experiences. But I don't know that I can directly share this experience with you, I can only expect that you have a soul and a similar experience and that you, another subject, know directly the kind of experience that I am describing.
Other philosophers have noted the importance of consciousness for recognizing the soul. In his chapter in the anthology The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul, 'The Soul of the Matter', Charles Taliaferro "presents the standard but powerful claim against materialism that it cannot accommodate consciousness: science is confined to the third-person viewpoint and all attempts to provide a third-personal account of the first-person conscious perspective fail." (http://ift.tt/2CtsqgY)
Another issue in the anthology is how while one can explain vocabulary and grammar, the ultimate source of the creative ability itself in language is not explainable. Most of the rest of the anthology goes into modern scientific arguments.
Wikipedia notes the explanations of Plato and Kant:
http://ift.tt/2lEjv22
How would you describe the puzzle of the soul's existence?
Do I exist, or is this really a misstatement, because there is really no "I"?
After all, doesn't the concept of "I" rests on the concept of an entity distinguishable from a physical body, whereas according to a purely materialistic model, nothing exists other than physical matter?
This "I", a real being distinct from the body alone, is what I mean by the soul. If I exist and am real, doesn't my soul really exist?
Can you relate to my experience of being a subject, looking out at the world, at one's brain, and experiencing them? Can you sense how this leads me to think that "I" am distinguishable from my brain? Even when my brain computes that it is computing, "I", the subject, still experience and observe my brain recognizing itself.
Since the soul is immaterial, to know it directly might be possible only intuitively and by experience. That is, a subject and person can know that he/she himself/herself is a subject and has a soul, but this fact might not be absolutely provable to others outside his/her body. but maybe not absolutely provable conclusively to others. My own experience of consciously looking out at the world is not one that I can directly share with others. From the POV of others outside the subject's body, the subject could be a well-made automaton, a dream, a fictional character.
The Huffington Post mentions some definitions of the soul:
Quote:
|
Sarah Ban Breathnach: The soul is the spiritual essence of who we really are. Eckhart Tolle: The soul is your innermost being. The presence that you are beyond form. The consciousness that you are beyond form, that is the soul. That is who you are in essence. Michael Singer: The indwelling consciousness that watches the mind come and go. That watches the heart come and go, the emotions of the heart. And watches the world pass before you. You, the conscious, the consciousness, the center of being, is soul. |
:ghost:
It looks to me that the best way to describe the issue of the soul is by discussing issues of my consciousness and how it relates to me as a subject, that is, a being aware that it is observing the world. It directly appears to me that I am or have a soul looking out from my body at the world and at my body. :boxedin:
This description or evidence involves a self-experience that both I the writer and you the reader have, and the full meaning of word "I" as a subject.
Descartes made the famous statement using consciousness to prove his own real existence: "I think therefore I am". The process of the observer recognizing that he is thinking points to the riddle of whether this observer ultimately is anything more than the physical components involved in the computation.
Is my existence an illusion and all that is really occurring with "me" is a mass of molecules and electrons undergoing physical processes? Are "I" and "you" just shorthand for "these masses of chemicals and cells" hitting keyboards?
When a person says “I like this color”, what does the person mean by “I”? By “I”, he/she doesn’t mean his/her physical brain. The physical brain could be addicted to a chemical, love it and find it wonderful. But one can still rightly say “I hate this chemical, it’s so addicting". Likewise, one can conceive of his/her own life outside his/her physical death, therefore conceptually a person and his/her soul is not the same thing as his/her physical body.
A major aspect of the experience of consciousness is the reality of the experience and the realistic feelings associated with it. It's one thing for a subject to imagine that the subject or another person experiences something, but another phenomena to experience it directly. The same is true with my consciousness. I "know" directly that I exist in the full experiential sense of the words "I and me", and this knowledge is in a manner that I cannot directly exhibit or prove to you.
This life experience rests on a layer that might not be explainable in purely materialistic terms. Materialistic science cannot fully make sense of questions like "Why am I me experiencing what I am in this body, and not you experiencing what you are in your body?" If "I" am nothing more than atoms and chemicals and a pattern of behavior formed solely by physical experiences, the question doesn't make sense. But if I have a soul, then why could at least understand the question why "I" as a subject am not directly experiencing what you are in your body. It alludes to a deeper common human sense, where I, my soul, am experiencing my body at this moment.
I can try to show you what I mean: Not only does my brain detect that it is computing and create brain memories that has detected this, and not only does the brain recognize that it has recognized that it computes, but there is a subject who itself observes the brain undergoing consciousness. There is a subject experiencing the brain's experiences. But I don't know that I can directly share this experience with you, I can only expect that you have a soul and a similar experience and that you, another subject, know directly the kind of experience that I am describing.
Other philosophers have noted the importance of consciousness for recognizing the soul. In his chapter in the anthology The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul, 'The Soul of the Matter', Charles Taliaferro "presents the standard but powerful claim against materialism that it cannot accommodate consciousness: science is confined to the third-person viewpoint and all attempts to provide a third-personal account of the first-person conscious perspective fail." (http://ift.tt/2CtsqgY)
Another issue in the anthology is how while one can explain vocabulary and grammar, the ultimate source of the creative ability itself in language is not explainable. Most of the rest of the anthology goes into modern scientific arguments.
Wikipedia notes the explanations of Plato and Kant:
Quote:
|
Plato considered the psyche to be the essence of a person, being that which decides how we behave. He considered this essence to be an incorporeal, eternal occupant of our being. Immanuel Kant In his discussions of rational psychology, Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) identified the soul as the "I" in the strictest sense, and argued that the existence of inner experience can neither be proved nor disproved. We cannot prove a priori the immateriality of the soul, but rather only so much: that all properties and actions of the soul cannot be recognized from materiality. |
How would you describe the puzzle of the soul's existence?
Do I exist, or is this really a misstatement, because there is really no "I"?
After all, doesn't the concept of "I" rests on the concept of an entity distinguishable from a physical body, whereas according to a purely materialistic model, nothing exists other than physical matter?
This "I", a real being distinct from the body alone, is what I mean by the soul. If I exist and am real, doesn't my soul really exist?
Can you relate to my experience of being a subject, looking out at the world, at one's brain, and experiencing them? Can you sense how this leads me to think that "I" am distinguishable from my brain? Even when my brain computes that it is computing, "I", the subject, still experience and observe my brain recognizing itself.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2CpmfuD
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire