The Soul

[Porpoise101]

So recently I've been thinking about why I believe the way I do in God. In doing so, I've realised that my current religious beliefs rely on two things, the soul and God. To me, if there is a soul, then that justifies God in my system. If there is no soul, then my current beliefs cannot be true. There are many arguments for and against God, but I'm wondering what the arguments are about the nature and presence of the soul.

So to you all: Do you guys believe in a soul? Who has one? What are its properties? Why do you think that way?

[Vlerchan]

The understanding I have is that in D/theistic philosophy* the soul is interchangeable with the intellect.

Thus it's of a pretty unquestionable existence.

---

* Judean Zealot's posts - though I'm aware of no greater authority on such matters.

[StoppingTom]

I guess before I pass judgment on this, I'd need a clear definition of what a soul exactly is.

[Judean Zealot]

Vlerchan

The soul's function is that of intellection (at least in classical theism - the Kantian conception is new). That that exists is beyond question, the questions are whether this intellect is transcendental and whether it is immortal.

[Porpoise101]

Vlerchan

The soul's function is that of intellection (at least in classical theism - the Kantian conception is new). That that exists is beyond question, the questions are whether this intellect is transcendental and whether it is immortal.
Interesting. From my background as a Hindu, I always considered the soul to be a "life force" that is divine in nature. It is what gives life the will to live and why animals and people are alive vs why a rock is not. Life with a soul should be able to consciously act and live as Nature has allowed it. For example, a lion is able to kill an antelope, a human can build, etc.

Personally, I've considered life that does not live 'consciously' like bacteria and protista to not have souls. But the question of whether plants and other non-sentient beings have souls is still debated. Many Hindus are split on plants, and some Jains believe that bacteria have souls.

I have always considered the soul to be immortal since it is part of the Universe and God.

[Judean Zealot]

Interesting. From my background as a Hindu, I always considered the soul to be a "life force" that is divine in nature. It is what gives life the will to live and why animals and people are alive vs why a rock is not. Life with a soul should be able to consciously act and live as Nature has allowed it. For example, a lion is able to kill an antelope, a human can build, etc.

Personally, I've considered life that does not live 'consciously' like bacteria and protista to not have souls. But the question of whether plants and other non-sentient beings have souls is still debated. Many Hindus are split on plants, and some Jains believe that bacteria have souls.

I have always considered the soul to be immortal since it is part of the Universe and God.

One might make the distinction between the soul of animation and the soul of intellection, the former belonging to animals as well while the latter is to humanity alone. That the animate soul is mortal is rather apparent, as it's function dissolves with the body. The soul of intellection, however, I maintain is immortal due to its immaterial nature, as I would assert as a preposition that while intellect is bounded by neural activity, it is not grounded in it.

Your final sentence is incomplete, though. The body can just as well be grounded in the universe and Brahman, yet the body isn't immortal. Although the energy remains, it is transferred to another mode of existence so that it no longer exists as a body. Similarly, one can say that if the function of the soul ceases with the dissolution of the body, then the soul has ceased to exist as the soul.

[sqishy]

Do you guys believe in a soul? Who has one? What are its properties? Why do you think that way?

I only know a sketchy view of the Aristotlean ideas on the soul, but from what I know is that the soul is the form of a living thing. This form is that which makes living things 'self-moving', or that many actions performed by it seem to have the start of the causal chain be from within the organism. In addition to this, organisms have the ability to maintain and/or increase the order they have already. This sets organisms apart from other highly ordered objects like computer motherboards and so on - it's one thing to be ordered, but another to get there and keep it.

So this would be the closest I would go with there being a soul, least for now.


I guess before I pass judgment on this, I'd need a clear definition of what a soul exactly is.

I feel this will take up a greater part of this thread, the 'easier' part is if we go with the definitions or not.



That [the intellect] exists is beyond question, the questions are whether this intellect is transcendental and whether it is immortal.

I'm going to equate the intellect with consciousness here - if the soul is to be defined as the possession of this, then this is the core thing yes.


From my background as a Hindu, I always considered the soul to be a "life force" that is divine in nature. It is what gives life the will to live and why animals and people are alive vs why a rock is not. Life with a soul should be able to consciously act and live as Nature has allowed it. For example, a lion is able to kill an antelope, a human can build, etc.

Personally, I've considered life that does not live 'consciously' like bacteria and protista to not have souls. But the question of whether plants and other non-sentient beings have souls is still debated. Many Hindus are split on plants, and some Jains believe that bacteria have souls.

This is not too different from the Aristotlean view, but they split apart with the definition being self-moving self-organising, and consciousness.



One might make the distinction between the soul of animation and the soul of intellection, the former belonging to animals as well while the latter is to humanity alone.

The animation would be just the Aristotlean soul, intellection/consciousness being another thing. As a side note, some would argue that humans are not alone in possessing this, as we have organisms such as octopi, crabs, cats, ant colonies that carry out complex tasks which are much more difficult to explain if without saying they have some form sentience and reasoning.




That the animate soul is mortal is rather apparent, as it's function dissolves with the body. The soul of intellection, however, I maintain is immortal due to its immaterial nature, as I would assert as a preposition that while intellect is bounded by neural activity, it is not grounded in it.

Self-organising being a local/limited process, is alright to assume.

The nature of the intellect is something we diverge on, though. For me (at the moment) I see consciousness/intellect as being a more complex process that arises out of certain interactions between more basic chemical/physical processes, which are interactions themselves.

An example of the greater interactions that make consciousness/intellect what it is, is the capacity to store information away from causal processes and release it after some variable time to interact with present casual processes, making up the involuntary comparison between present sense information inflow and remembered sense info inflow, which makes experience arise out of it (which I also call XP for short). That is only one part of it, but it requires constituent processes, the chemistry/physics of neurons and such, to work.

To make and sustain the 'stage' of a certain ordered state to make information flow back and forth and so on for consciousness, you need certain foundations to set it aside from the non-conscious surroundings. These foundations are finite/limited. So, at least by where it is anchored and in the view of how it exists in this physical world, consciousness is finite in space and time.



I have always considered the soul to be immortal since it is part of the Universe and God.

I can extend this to say that everything is immortal because it is part of the universe and god, but I'm assuming you don't think this.



The body can just as well be grounded in the universe and Brahman, yet the body isn't immortal. Although the energy remains, it is transferred to another mode of existence so that it no longer exists as a body. Similarly, one can say that if the function of the soul ceases with the dissolution of the body, then the soul has ceased to exist as the soul.

Can the soul not be treated like this?

[Judean Zealot]

I'm going to equate the intellect with consciousness here - if the soul is to be defined as the possession of this, then this is the core thing yes.

Consciousness is merely a subset of the intellect.

As a side note, some would argue that humans are not alone in possessing this, as we have organisms such as octopi, crabs, cats, ant colonies that carry out complex tasks which are much more difficult to explain if without saying they have some form sentience and reasoning.


I have posted at length about this here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3355259&postcount=58).

The nature of the intellect is something we diverge on, though. For me (at the moment) I see consciousness/intellect as being a more complex process that arises out of certain interactions between more basic chemical/physical processes, which are interactions themselves.

An example of the greater interactions that make consciousness/intellect what it is, is the capacity to store information away from causal processes and release it after some variable time to interact with present casual processes, making up the involuntary comparison between present sense information inflow and remembered sense info inflow, which makes experience arise out of it (which I also call XP for short). That is only one part of it, but it requires constituent processes, the chemistry/physics of neurons and such, to work.

To make and sustain the 'stage' of a certain ordered state to make information flow back and forth and so on for consciousness, you need certain foundations to set it aside from the non-conscious surroundings. These foundations are finite/limited. So, at least by where it is anchored and in the view of how it exists in this physical world, consciousness is finite in space and time.


If I have time after Passover I'll address this in greater detail, but for now I must leave it at this.

Can the soul not be treated like this?

If it's nature transcends neural activity, no.

[Porpoise101]

One might make the distinction between the soul of animation and the soul of intellection, the former belonging to animals as well while the latter is to humanity alone. That the animate soul is mortal is rather apparent, as it's function dissolves with the body. The soul of intellection, however, I maintain is immortal due to its immaterial nature, as I would assert as a preposition that while intellect is bounded by neural activity, it is not grounded in it.

Your final sentence is incomplete, though. The body can just as well be grounded in the universe and Brahman, yet the body isn't immortal. Although the energy remains, it is transferred to another mode of existence so that it no longer exists as a body. Similarly, one can say that if the function of the soul ceases with the dissolution of the body, then the soul has ceased to exist as the soul.
Intellection arises from animation. Since the soul has an ultimate goal of spiritual purity, it is driven to do it's duty to achieve that end. Purity arises from virtue and action. Virtue is achieved by fulfilling a defined purpose. Since people must think, then the soul allows for that end. It doesn't go away either, as the soul goes to the next mortal being that has the capability to live and act. The act of purification takes more than one lifetime, so it inhabits the next mortal being to use as an actor on its behalf. Once this soul is pure, it is divine as it has a desire to be. So the primary function of a soul isn't living, it's more about refining, which requires living and thinking.

[sqishy]

Consciousness is merely a subset of the intellect.

So then the intellect is that which does thinking and reasoning about stuff, and consciousness is the thinking about thinking? (Seeing where we're set at here.) I was treating them as the same as the latter is just the former looping onto itself.



If I have time after Passover I'll address this in greater detail, but for now I must leave it at this.

Alright, I look forward to it.



I have posted at length about this here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3355259&postcount=58).

I will respond in detail with this with your post of greater detail too.



If it's nature transcends neural activity, no.

What part of its nature transcends the activity?

Its transcendence for me is the very nature of consciousness that does things which its constituent parts alone cannot do - it is the integration of the parts that makes it more than merely the sum of the parts. Basically, synergy.

[Arkansasguy]

So recently I've been thinking about why I believe the way I do in God. In doing so, I've realised that my current religious beliefs rely on two things, the soul and God. To me, if there is a soul, then that justifies God in my system. If there is no soul, then my current beliefs cannot be true. There are many arguments for and against God, but I'm wondering what the arguments are about the nature and presence of the soul.

So to you all: Do you guys believe in a soul? Who has one? What are its properties? Why do you think that way?

Human beings are capable of considering universals. Universals are by definition, immaterial. Thus the human intellect must be immaterial.

[sqishy]

Human beings are capable of considering universals. Universals are by definition, immaterial. Thus the human intellect must be immaterial.

I'm alright with thinking of the human intellect as being able to 'reach out' to entities that are more information than material or just pure information and that (one angle as analogy), but does it mean we can then say the intellect is of the same 'stuff' as what it can get to at its far end? Perhaps the 'sampling end' is, but not the whole thing.



I'll reflect your argument by using materiality:

"Human beings are capable of considering rocks. Rocks are by definition, material. Thus the human intellect must be material."


Abstracting it:

X has an intellect T capable of considering Y.
Y has the property P.
Therefore the T of X must have the property P as well.


I've done the above not to shoot you down already (though certainly am not settled with this), but because I want to see your motivations behind the argument through how you respond.

- - - - - - - -

Suspending what I said above, I'll grant us looking through the metaphorical lens of the material/immaterial distinction for now, and assume our intellect is of the same stuff/property as what it 'captures'.

Our intellect has the ability to direct and store information about certain things, within itself. I feel the question here is whether this information captures the essence of immateriality or not, because it's still information if the object came from someone else's intellect through language, or if it came from our own XP (short for sense experience for me, separate from the abstraction above).

What part of the essence of the information we get about both, makes 'information from material' different from 'information from immaterial'? Even if we hold our intellect to be pure information and say that is immaterial, then it seems to not matter if it is info about immaterial or material stuff, as the essence of neither gets makes a difference if the information itself will be immaterial anyway.

What I'm getting at is that the intellect can be immaterial, but not because it 'gets it' from some things has capability considering.


So one thing is me granting your view to be correct, but another thing is to grant that the argument is sound as well - you can be correct with the conclusion but be incorrect getting there.
(Hope I have said this well enough to understand.)

[Arkansasguy]

I'm alright with thinking of the human intellect as being able to 'reach out' to entities that are more information than material or just pure information and that (one angle as analogy), but does it mean we can then say the intellect is of the same 'stuff' as what it can get to at its far end? Perhaps the 'sampling end' is, but not the whole thing.



I'll reflect your argument by using materiality:

"Human beings are capable of considering rocks. Rocks are by definition, material. Thus the human intellect must be material."


Abstracting it:

X has an intellect T capable of considering Y.
Y has the property P.
Therefore the T of X must have the property P as well.


I've done the above not to shoot you down already (though certainly am not settled with this), but because I want to see your motivations behind the argument through how you respond.

- - - - - - - -

Suspending what I said above, I'll grant us looking through the metaphorical lens of the material/immaterial distinction for now, and assume our intellect is of the same stuff/property as what it 'captures'.

Our intellect has the ability to direct and store information about certain things, within itself. I feel the question here is whether this information captures the essence of immateriality or not, because it's still information if the object came from someone else's intellect through language, or if it came from our own XP (short for sense experience for me, separate from the abstraction above).

What part of the essence of the information we get about both, makes 'information from material' different from 'information from immaterial'? Even if we hold our intellect to be pure information and say that is immaterial, then it seems to not matter if it is info about immaterial or material stuff, as the essence of neither gets makes a difference if the information itself will be immaterial anyway.

What I'm getting at is that the intellect can be immaterial, but not because it 'gets it' from some things has capability considering.


So one thing is me granting your view to be correct, but another thing is to grant that the argument is sound as well - you can be correct with the conclusion but be incorrect getting there.
(Hope I have said this well enough to understand.)

Just to be clear, the intellect's immateriality precedes its ability to consider immaterial things in causation, we just have to reason backwards here.

The reverse argument doesn't hold. There are immaterial qualities of everything, in the sense that every particular physical thing is a subset of some category of universals, so it's not possible to consider immaterial things while being incapable of considering material things. On the other hand the reverse is entirely possible.

[Xiao.Z]

I not believe soul exist.

[sqishy]

Just to be clear, the intellect's immateriality precedes its ability to consider immaterial things in causation, we just have to reason backwards here.


The reverse argument doesn't hold. There are immaterial qualities of everything, in the sense that every particular physical thing is a subset of some category of universals, so it's not possible to consider immaterial things while being incapable of considering material things. On the other hand the reverse is entirely possible.

So for you the immateriality of an object is it participating in a universal of some kind. So universals are certain types of order, and objects that have these types of order have those universals.

Is the definition of immateriality just orderedness for you, or is it different?
The definition of materiality is that which is not immaterial - if all physical objects are a mix of materiality and immateriality (which I would take it to be), then there is something about physical objects that make them material in some way, what makes them physical as opposed to a universal.

You say that immateriality cannot be comprehended without materiality, but that materiality can be comprehended alone. How would one be able to comprehend materiality without comprehending immateriality?

[Arkansasguy]

So for you the immateriality of an object is it participating in a universal of some kind. So universals are certain types of order, and objects that have these types of order have those universals.

Is the definition of immateriality just orderedness for you, or is it different?
The definition of materiality is that which is not immaterial - if all physical objects are a mix of materiality and immateriality (which I would take it to be), then there is something about physical objects that make them material in some way, what makes them physical as opposed to a universal.

You say that immateriality cannot be comprehended without materiality, but that materiality can be comprehended alone. How would one be able to comprehend materiality without comprehending immateriality?

All universals are immaterial, though it's possible in principle for their to be immaterial particulars.

In order to understand a universal (a universal that references matter anyway), one must be capable of comprehending matter and immaterial things. Since universals, which are immaterial, can reference matter, it follows that immaterial things can by nature comprehend matter, so your original objection does not hold.

[sqishy]

All universals are immaterial, though it's possible in principle for their to be immaterial particulars.

Universals are immaterial, yes.



In order to understand a universal (a universal that references matter anyway), one must be capable of comprehending matter and immaterial things. Since universals, which are immaterial, can reference matter, it follows that immaterial things can by nature comprehend matter, so your original objection does not hold.

What is it about materiality that makes it material and not universal? I can say that there are thousands (or whatever big or infinite number) of universals instantiated in a certain material object, but what makes it not immaterial?

What is immateriality? (Whatever is not materiality, which I ask you for what you see it as.)

Specifically what is my original objection that does not hold here?

I need some specifics here.

[Arkansasguy]

Universals are immaterial, yes.




What is it about materiality that makes it material and not universal? I can say that there are thousands (or whatever big or infinite number) of universals instantiated in a certain material object, but what makes it not immaterial?

What is immateriality? (Whatever is not materiality, which I ask you for what you see it as.)

Specifically what is my original objection that does not hold here?

I need some specifics here.

What makes matter material is that it's matter.

[sqishy]

What makes matter material is that it's matter.

What is matter then, in your view? (What you say is that X is Y because it is X.)

[Arkansasguy]

What is matter then, in your view? (What you say is that X is Y because it is X.)

Matter is matter. I'm not sure how much farther it can be reduced beyond that.

[sqishy]

Matter is matter. I'm not sure how much farther it can be reduced beyond that.

I meant what is it about matter that makes it such, rather than non-matter. If you're saying that matter is matter, then I don't know how your viewpoint with its argument can work when materiality is just itself and immateriality is what materiality is not. It seems empty as a description.

Abstracting it, you say that because X is X, non-X entities can comprehend both X and non-X.

I want more insight into what materiality and immateriality are that makes them what they are, other than just saying they are themselves, if I am going to go back and see what you mean by how the intellect is a soul.