Originally Posted by Sometimes psychotic

Sadly my first thought was that it's just a delusion but one that's allowed by both our minds and society...

First rule of philosophy is definition, so what is the definition of the soul that you believe is a delusion?

I think a soul is a congeries of deep mysterious drives, instincts, feelings and it's crowned by rationality, and in the mix it collects experiences and the main executive branch of the soul is a active, organizing, creative agent that knits experience together, and makes sense of it all.

Is it indestructible? Probably not, but if there is a god then maybe there is an afterlife that would allow it to live on in a greater harmony. Speaking of harmony, I'm grabbing one more beer.

[Sometimes psychotic]

I believe the soul as commonly defined to be a subset of our thoughts merged with some overarching subconscious thoughts that are manifested as drives. The reason I feel it's a delusion is I think parts of the whole are missing so it's much more like a cultivated garden than something wild like a forest that I think it truly is. Those drives manifested from subconscious thoughts I think are probably actual thoughts in the true soul. For me elements I wasn't aware of emerged when psychotic and they are things which likely were carefully pruned away to fit with a modern worldview...but they are still there....still part of me.
The thing is I these days belive the soul is mortal and in some ways a trick of the brain to give a sense of unity when our thoughts are more likely discordant and competitive vying to be the one that's acted upon.

Tldr: what we often think of as the soul is likely just the surface of what I consider the true soul, a wilder untamed thing.

[neil w]

I think any meaningful definition of the soul will have to distinguish it from what we would commonly agree exists in the brain.

[Sometimes psychotic]

Originally Posted by neil w

I think any meaningful definition of the soul will have to distinguish it from what we would commonly agree exists in the brain.

What about those of us that don't belive it exists as anything beyond a creation of the brain?

[Angelique67]

I believe the soul is a combination of known and unknown things and therefore is indefinable.

[Sometimes psychotic]

Does philosophy ever arrive at a consensus or it the consideration of different viewpoints part of the point? This is one class I never took.

Just wondering given the value placed on consensus reality in psychosis....

[neil w]

Originally Posted by Sometimes psychotic

What about those of us that don't belive it exists as anything beyond a creation of the brain?

Then you would be arguing the soul doesnt exist except as an intellectual and social construction as everything could be described by the brain and its functions and it would be redundant to call it a soul. Hence any meaningful definition of soul has be to be something apart from the brain.

there is very little consensus in philosophy just as there isnt in religion.

[Sometimes psychotic]

Originally Posted by neil w

Then you would be arguing the soul doesnt exist except as an intellectual and social construction as everything could be described by the brain and its functions and it would be redundant to call it a soul. Hence any meaningful definition of soul has be to be something apart from the brain.

there is very little consensus in philosophy just as there isnt in religion.

that is what I'm arguing but I don't think its not meaningful its just not magical...I really don't think there is another word that adequately describes the brain and all its functions....sure there is cognition but it's more than that...it's personality but also thoughts etc. But what of those thoughts we don't acknowledge. What do we call the sum total of non physical components of a person other than a soul? The brain and all its electrochemical components are like the musical notes but the soul is more like music itself. They are the same but very different as well.

I totally agree with what Sometimes wrote about the soul, as that's the way I view it too.

The problem with studying the brain in psychology and even other disciplines is that you are using your brain to study the brain. I think that is a major limitation. That is also a huge problem I personally have in trying to understand my experiences; if my brain has distorted consensus reality, then how can I figure that out myself using my wonky brain?!

*Willow*

Originally Posted by Sometimes psychotic

What about those of us that don't belive it exists as anything beyond a creation of the brain?

If we take the brain, expand it to the size of a building, walk into that building, what will we see? Mostly fat, protein and water, which translates into axons, dendrites and synapses. No where do we see an idea in the machinations of the brain. This calls into question just how information is processed in the brain.

There are three categories of information that I know of. First, there is information like that of bioelectrical impulses going through the brain, much like a computer in relation with electricity and transistors. Second, there is information that arises from material machination, which we call programming code. Much like how a computer can be programmed to move in a game of chess. Third, there is information that is consciously known. It's like knowing that you know. It's Descarte saying, "I think therefore I am". It's information of awareness. It's called apperception. Which can be defined as:

the mental process by which a person makes sense of an idea by assimilating it to the body of ideas he or she already possesses.

How many computers for instance can perform a chess move, and know that it is performing a chess move.

Let me illustrate this last kind of information more carefully by paraphrasing John Searle's Chinese room, Which can be found here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Imagine a man name John who knows nothing about Chinese culture or language and he enters into a room with Chinese figures all around him. There is a window, and on the other side of the window are Chinese observers. On the floor of this room that John is in is a set of cards. On one side of the cards are Chinese characters that he doesn't understand, but on the opposite side are a series of different dots. Furthermore, on the floor there are a series of dots which match up with the cards, so he has to match the same series of dots on the cards with the corresponding ones on the floor. Like a computer, he understands the rules and he lays the cards in the correct order on the floor, facing the Chinese characters up. Once down he stands back and he has finished his task flawlessly.

So what's missing here? What information is John not understanding? The cards are laid face up displaying the Chinese characters, and together they string a sentence that says a joke in Chinese, "What did the leper say to the prostitute? Keep the tip" Chinese observers laugh at this joke but John sits there scratching his head. John is unaware just like a computer is unaware of this third kind of information. Computers aren't aware, it's artificial simulation. They are dark inside, where we have this spark of conscious that illuminates the worlds with feelings, emotions, motives, purposes, goals, desires!

Further questions to consider when questioning a strictly materialist version of mind:
Will a computer ever understand a joke?
Will a computer ever see the beauty in a sunrise?
Will a computer ever feel an emotion, and not just simulate one?

I have so many questions about the mind, for instance, how can it be that modern physics is based on probablism yet our mind picks up on logical certainties. There is a modal mismatch here that is interesting. Shouldn't physics be probablism top to bottom if everything is reducible to physics? The brain just acts on action potentials not logical certainties.

Also, what is it about the soul that can make contact with universals such as the Pythagorean theorem? His theorem isn't right about an awful lot of rectilinear triangles but every single one. To further make my point, a person can go around measuring each and every triangle measuring it has a 180 degrees or they can just know by definition that A-squared plus B-squared = C-Squared. One doesn't learn that from empiricism, from observation! Just like one doesn't know that there is always a number higher than the next ad infinitum! So empiricism has it's challenges and the mind seems to be more than just a mere collection of experiences.

Take a war, expand the battle field so huge that you can begin to see all the physical particles. where in the flotsam and jetsam of particles do we see what the soldiers are fighting for? Where is justice, devotion, and courage on the physical level of explanation? Where are morals and beauty in the quantum physics of it all? Morals are a social phenomenon, not a physical one

There seems to be something that transcends the physical world here in some matter. Some call it epiphenomenalism, dualism, or some combine the two and say that there exists one substance with two properties, one side being mental, the other side being physical, and every particle has some fundamental essence of consciousness whatever that may be. David Chalmers calls this panpsychism, he works at Berkley University.

There are innumerable theories on this but these are my current thoughts on the matter.

I don't believe that I'm aware of my own consciousness. I could think one thought and it leads to a whole new future, killing my previous self.

But I'm not really sure I just believe that I'm not important and neither is anyone else. No more important than a tree and that life is pointless.

Btw I'm not in control in psychiatric terms right now either so

Edit: thought this was role call

.. And so I had no idea that I wasn't posting in role call. Life is a lie.

Originally Posted by Sometimes psychotic

Does philosophy ever arrive at a consensus or it the consideration of different viewpoints part of the point? This is one class I never took.

Just wondering given the value placed on consensus reality in psychosis....

There is no DSM manual for philosophy where people come together and create a consensus. All philosophers have their favorites, and usually their favorites are due in fact from who taught them to begin with. Philosophy professors will teach their own twist of philosophy to their students and so the brainwashing begins. I'll never forget when one professor called Descartes a son of a *****. Or when another called Wittgenstein delusional, or Nietzsche a lunatic. Many of these professors have no respect for the history of ideas; the best things said and thought by the human race that give the means to help a rational creature become ever more rational.

There are movements, and with each movement there is a countermovement. With the enlightenment came the romantic rebellion for instance.

If I had to define this age though I'd say science is king. Physicalism is the most persuasive to the masses. Morally, we have become Utilitarian's of some sort. Government wise, well that depends on where you live. Theologically, that's a hot topic!

EDIT: Daniel Dennett, a famous materialistic philosopher and friend of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris believe that religion is a selfish meme. It's like a parasite that controls your mental thoughts. Religion's worldview has an effect on how one sees and acts in the world. Well what I want to suggest is that this is a disgusting viewpoint and that I'd like to point the finger right back at Dennett and say his strict materialism is just as capable of being a parasitic ideology that twists how he sees the world. He believes consciousness is an illusion, yet commonsense, our most dependable judge for knowing the things of this world says just knows that the self exists, it can feel a pain and it knows that it is my pain and not your pain. This is consciousness. So the point of this edit is to show the hubris of even the most famous of philosophers, a reductionist philosopher who came out with a book that I read named "Consciousness explained" yet came no where close to explaining consciousness because he is blinded by an idea that there is no such thing, so he just went on explaining the machinations of the brain.

[Sometimes psychotic]

Originally Posted by 0dysseus

If we take the brain, expand it to the size of a building, walk into that building, what will we see? Mostly fat, protein and water, which translates into axons, dendrites and synapses. No where do we see an idea in the machinations of the brain. This calls into question just how information is processed in the brain.

There are three categories of information that I know of. First, there is information like that of bioelectrical impulses going through the brain, much like a computer in relation with electricity and transistors. Second, there is information that arises from material machination, which we call programming code. Much like how a computer can be programmed to move in a game of chess. Third, there is information that is consciously known. It's like knowing that you know. It's Descarte saying, "I think therefore I am". It's information of awareness. It's called apperception. Which can be defined as:
How many computers for instance can perform a chess move, and know that it is performing a chess move.

Let me illustrate this last kind of information more carefully by paraphrasing John Searle's Chinese room, Which can be found here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Imagine a man name John who knows nothing about Chinese culture or language and he enters into a room with Chinese figures all around him. There is a window, and on the other side of the window are Chinese observers. On the floor of this room that John is in is a set of cards. On one side of the cards are Chinese characters that he doesn't understand, but on the opposite side are a series of different dots. Furthermore, on the floor there are a series of dots which match up with the cards, so he has to match the same series of dots on the cards with the corresponding ones on the floor. Like a computer, he understands the rules and he lays the cards in the correct order on the floor, facing the Chinese characters up. Once down he stands back and he has finished his task flawlessly.

So what's missing here? What information is John not understanding? The cards are laid face up displaying the Chinese characters, and together they string a sentence that says a joke in Chinese, "What did the leper say to the prostitute? Keep the tip" Chinese observers laugh at this joke but John sits there scratching his head. John is unaware just like a computer is unaware of this third kind of information. Computers aren't aware, it's artificial simulation. They are dark inside, where we have this spark of conscious that illuminates the worlds with feelings, emotions, motives, purposes, goals, desires!

Further questions to consider when questioning a strictly materialist version of mind:
Will a computer ever understand a joke?
Will a computer ever see the beauty in a sunrise?
Will a computer ever feel an emotion, and not just simulate one?

I have so many questions about the mind, for instance, how can it be that modern physics is based on probablism yet our mind picks up on logical certainties. There is a modal mismatch here that is interesting. Shouldn't physics be probablism top to bottom if everything is reducible to physics? The brain just acts on action potentials not logical certainties.

Also, what is it about the soul that can make contact with universals such as the Pythagorean theorem? His theorem isn't right about an awful lot of rectilinear triangles but every single one. To further make my point, a person can go around measuring each and every triangle measuring it has a 180 degrees or they can just know by definition that A-squared plus B-squared = C-Squared. One doesn't learn that from empiricism, from observation! Just like one doesn't know that there is always a number higher than the next ad infinitum! So empiricism has it's challenges and the mind seems to be more than just a mere collection of experiences.

Take a war, expand the battle field so huge that you can begin to see all the physical particles. where in the flotsam and jetsam of particles do we see what the soldiers are fighting for? Where is justice, devotion, and courage on the physical level of explanation? Where are morals and beauty in the quantum physics of it all? Morals are a social phenomenon, not a physical one

There seems to be something that transcends the physical world here in some matter. Some call it epiphenomenalism, dualism, or some combine the two and say that there exists one substance with two properties, one side being mental, the other side being physical, and every particle has some fundamental essence of consciousness whatever that may be. David Chalmers calls this panpsychism, he works at Berkley University.

There are innumerable theories on this but these are my current thoughts on the matter.

we may not fully understand the means by which memories are stored/thoughts are processed but then I would challenge anyone unfamiliar look at a computer hard drive as more than a disk of some sort...just like a brain is fat, neurons etc and makes no sense a computer equally makes no sense to those unaware of how it works. I think we simply haven't figured out how the brain works quite yet. The science may actually be beyond our ability.

You mention thinking about thinking....I learned this as meta cognition and I considered using the word when I mentioned the soul was like music where the brain and it's functions were the notes. I do think there is something distinct about the whole that's greater than the individual parts (yes this concept is borrowed )and that whole is what I'm calling the soul.

As far as feeling etc I feel those are all different types of signalling also beyond our comprehension at the moment although we have some idea about things like dopamine and serotonin mostly from blocking/enhancing them.

Regarding computers they have two inputs 0 and 1 it's black and white...everything is absolute....we have to remove certainty for humor to take root...I think it's possible but I don't know any computers programmed for maybe just yet.

That's all I've got right now.

[neil w]

Originally Posted by Sometimes psychotic

I do think there is something distinct about the whole that's greater than the individual parts (yes this concept is borrowed )and that whole is what I'm calling the soul.

Ah right, i thought you were reducing it to the brain and what it produces. So would you say the soul dies with the person?

Just to relate what some others have posited throughout history. Some think the soul is the spark of life itself. Some think it is the hylomorphic combination of mind and body. Some think the soul is the form or archetype of the human being. Some believe we only participate in a collective soul distributed to all life.

[gaway1989]

First, I'm not schizophrenic.... I'm bipolar.
--
So, excuse me...

Existencialism is a kind of cliché... but I like it. I really enjoy Albert Camus and Tillich.

Newtus, try to read The Rebel.

Take Care,

G.

[Sometimes psychotic]

Originally Posted by neil w

Ah right, i thought you were reducing it to the brain and what it produces. So would you say the soul dies with the person?

Just to relate what some others have posited throughout history. Some think the soul is the spark of life itself. Some think it is the hylomorphic combination of mind and body. Some think the soul is the form or archetype of the human being. Some believe we only participate in a collective soul distributed to all life.

I'm not sure if it dies with the person or not---I'm kind of in a weird spot where I'm not sure what I believe any more. Psychosis threw me for a loop there....still processing.

[newtus]

sorry i havent even started doing my homework yet for school. procrastinating. will start later today and post some good stuff here.

[neil w]

It's not weird at all to be undecided or confused about this, nor for opinions to change over time.

[Sometimes psychotic]

Originally Posted by neil w

It's not weird at all to be undecided or confused about this, nor for opinions to change over time.

It's weird for me as I consider it to be rather important...it was easy when I was an atheist to answer this question but post psychosis I made sort of a deal with God about helping me with the voices and I very much meant it. However the more clear my thinking gets the more I lean back toward no God and while I realize the soul could still survive even in the absence of a higher power I tend to assume that it does survive in the presence of one. Still my only part of the deal was to believe in God and that seems a minor price if it truly frees me from the voices so I won't be going back on it any time soon I just don't have the rest of the details worked out just yet.

I was thinking yesterday about faith and beliefs in general, because I was thinking about how I don't believe in god, but I do believe bad things that upset me. I can see that a belief in god is helpful for people and I can see that some of my beliefs are unhelpful because they are distressing, but how much of a conscious choice is faith? Can I choose to believe in god to comfort me and choose not to believe the Govt stuff? Can I choose to believe that Dog is really Max? I don't know... Everyone says it's that simple; a choice I make, like ordering a meal in a restaurant, but I'm not convinced. The way I see it is that I could choose to believe that the sky is green, and I could even tell myself the sky is green 50x a day...but how long will it take before a conscious decision becomes accepted belief??

*Willow*

[newtus]

Originally Posted by WeepingWillow23

I was thinking yesterday about faith and beliefs in general, because I was thinking about how I don't believe in god, but I do believe bad things that upset me. I can see that a belief in god is helpful for people and I can see that some of my beliefs are unhelpful because they are distressing, but how much of a conscious choice is faith? Can I choose to believe in god to comfort me and choose not to believe the Govt stuff? Can I choose to believe that Dog is really Max? I don't know... Everyone says it's that simple; a choice I make, like ordering a meal in a restaurant, but I'm not convinced. The way I see it is that I could choose to believe that the sky is green, and I could even tell myself the sky is green 50x a day...but how long will it take before a conscious decision becomes accepted belief??

*Willow*

From all you just said - I feel like that last sentence you said is somewhat contradictory. because at first your talking about not believing in god and then you say "how much of a conscious choice is faith?". then there at the end you say "i could choose to believe that the sky is green...how long will it take before a conscious decision becomes accepted belief?"

well believing in a god...is about faith. right now im thinking: do you have faith the sky is green?. when you look at the sky what do you physically see? and then what do you feel? - is most important question next. what does it mean to you and other people for the sky to be green?

a lot of religions not just the major 3 ones have a lot to do with how people feel towards themselves and others. but thats only part of religion. im not schooled on every religion but doesnt every religion have a free will? i know a lot do. you can choose to believe something and find its purpose for why it is in this world.

why is the sky green? whats its purpose for being green? maybe it being green can teach us something that other people are missing out on. maybe something that everyone is missing out on and we should band together to tell others how important it is.

idk if im making sense but im just trying to solidify the meaning of faith in religion and the free will we have as humans to make the decision to have faith in things. how much of a conscious decision is faith? well faith is basically believing blindly. but thats not a negative thing.

[Axiom]

I really like Nietzsche. Hope to read something of Sartre sometime too. I don't read much but I really like philosophy. Quote that i love, from Nietzsche:

"Yes, a dying for many has been created here, which glorifies itself as life: verily, a great service to all preachers of death!
The state, I call it, where all drink poison, the good and the bad: the state, where all lose themselves, the good and the bad: the state, where the slow suicide of all -- is called "life."
Behold the superfluous! They steal the works of the creators and the treasures of the wise. Education, they call their theft -- and everything becomes sickness and trouble to them!
Behold the superfluous! They are always sick; they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour each other and cannot even digest themselves.
Behold the superfluous! They acquire wealth and become the poorer for it. They seek power, and the lever of power, much money -- these impotent ones!
See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus pull each other into the mud and the abyss.
They all strive for the throne: this is their madness -- as if happiness sat on the throne! Often filth sits on the throne. -- and often also the throne on filth."

[newtus]

So i took my first philosophy exam and got a 90. i kind of thought i was gonna get a 100.

[Angelique67]

Originally Posted by newtus

So i took my first philosophy exam and got a 90. i kind of thought i was gonna get a 100.

That's still really good! Congrats.

[avlady]

I took a college philosophy class and got an A in it but i wouldn't remember a thing about it today. i prefer the philosophy for Dummies again.