Proof of The Soul (Pandora's Contraption - Part 2)

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

This thought-experiment proves that the mind simply cannot be completely a product of the brain.

Proof of the Soul - Pandora's Contraption - Part 2

(A St Patrick's day blessing)

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

This thought-experiment proves that the mind simply cannot be completely a product of the brain.

Proof of the Soul - Pandora's Contraption - Part 2

(A St Patrick's day blessing)

I'm just going to be frank. How does this prove the existence of the soul exactly?

 

[Darkstorn]

I'm just going to be frank. How does this prove the existence of the soul exactly?

By using a very outdated and naive model of philosophy where instead of thinking that your body is you, something not-your body is you, Dualism so to speak. Instead of a more modern way of thinking that your body + your mind + your experiences + whatever else unknown you might possess as a whole is you.

Worthless drivel in my opinion, that site.

 

[psychoslice]

For me there is no soul, only energy, call that a soul if you want,

 

[ratiocinator]

This thought-experiment proves that the mind simply cannot be completely a product of the brain.

Well, if the sense of 'I' is a process in the brain (as all the evidence suggests) then after the described teleport, there would, momentarily, be two identical 'I's - whose experiences would then diverge. You only run into problems if you assume that there can only be one 'I'.

 

[Skwim]

This thought-experiment proves that the mind simply cannot be completely a product of the brain.

Proof of the Soul - Pandora's Contraption - Part 2

As a simplified syllogism:
Your awareness is uniquely you.
Your physical atoms are not unique.
So your body is not ‘you.’

Good, I like syllogisms. Let's substitute for your terms and see what form it takes.

M = Your awareness
P = Uniquely you
S = Your physical atoms
​

Oh, oh more than three terms hmmm. . . . . . .well, ok.

Q = Unique
R = Your body
Y = 'You'​

The "simplified syllogism"

All M is P
S are not Q
_________
R is not Y
​

Gotta say, I've never seen one like this before.

.

​

 

[Fire_Monkey]

Proves nothing.

And there is also no aspect or function of the mind that cannot be explained by materialist neuro-science. Which posits that everything we are, all aspects of our self, our personalities, our thoughts, desires, emotions, et al., are simply the products...the manifestations, if you will, of any specific combination of neurotransmitters firing around between our brain's neurons. THIS has been proved by the fact that nobody has ever had a thought or emotion or whatever after the brain has died! LOL If there was a soul, then it would be ably to stand on its own without the help of a mere organ--the brain.
Right?

But of course this has never happened. All that we are is in our brains. And the term "mind" is only a useful label for our co-called "software." That is the thoughts and memories and experiences that are stored in our brains. Not too unlike a computer's hard drive.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Great Argument. It similar to the classical Indian argument that I am not my body, because the body changes. We don't need to wait for 500 years for a teleporter to find out, in fact the teleporting already happens, every moment the atoms in our body teleport, vanish from their position and reappear in another and yet the "I" still remains. In other words the brain, any other part of the body or the entire body itself cannot be the container for the "I" anymore than a bottomless cup can be a container for water.

 

[Milton Platt]

This thought-experiment proves that the mind simply cannot be completely a product of the brain.

Proof of the Soul - Pandora's Contraption - Part 2

(A St Patrick's day blessing)

From the link:
Your awareness is uniquely you.
Your physical atoms are not unique.
So your body is not ‘you.’

I reject this because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the two premises.

Also, demonstrate why atoms have to be unique in order to be a part of something.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Well, if the sense of 'I' is a process in the brain (as all the evidence suggests) then after the described teleport, there would, momentarily, be two identical 'I's - whose experiences would then diverge. You only run into problems if you assume that there can only be one 'I'.

So you do not have the same empirical experience that I do of being a unique conscious 'I'?
How curious.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I'm just going to be frank. How does this prove the existence of the soul exactly?

By showing that if we replicate the brain, then we cannot replicate a unique 'I'
because a replication is not unique.
Unless you yourself do not actually have a unique 'I'?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

By using a very outdated and naive model of philosophy where instead of thinking that your body is you, something not-your body is you, Dualism so to speak. Instead of a more modern way of thinking that your body + your mind + your experiences + whatever else unknown you might possess as a whole is you.

Worthless drivel in my opinion, that site.

So you observe option 'E'.
You prefer insult to logic.
That is to be expected, it is certainly the mindset of this society.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

For me there is no soul, only energy, call that a soul if you want,

So energy has consciousness?
hmm
If so then how do you cater for unique individual consciousness?

 

[ratiocinator]

So you do not have the same empirical experience that I do of being a unique conscious 'I'?

How do you know you are unique? How would you be able to tell if there where more than one of you - all with identical experiences? What would be different?

How can you tell that the 'you' that woke up this morning was the same 'you' that went to sleep last night?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Good, I like syllogisms. Let's substitute for your terms and see what form it takes.

M = Your awareness
P = Uniquely you
S = Your physical atoms
​

Oh, oh more than three terms hmmm. . . . . . .well, ok.

Q = Unique
R = Your body
Y = 'You'​

The "simplified syllogism"

All M is P
S are not Q
_________
R is not Y
​

Gotta say, I've never seen one like this before.

.

​

Perhaps its because you have opted for option E.

Think in words perhaps:
Atoms are not unique.
Your consciousness is unique.
Therefore your atoms are not conscious.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Proves nothing.

And there is also no aspect or function of the mind that cannot be explained by materialist neuro-science. Which posits that everything we are, all aspects of our self, our personalities, our thoughts, desires, emotions, et al., are simply the products...the manifestations, if you will, of any specific combination of neurotransmitters firing around between our brain's neurons. THIS has been proved by the fact that nobody has ever had a thought or emotion or whatever after the brain has died! LOL If there was a soul, then it would be ably to stand on its own without the help of a mere organ--the brain.
Right?

All of Christianity (and more) has a different empirical experience.

But of course this has never happened. All that we are is in our brains. And the term "mind" is only a useful label for our co-called "software." That is the thoughts and memories and experiences that are stored in our brains. Not too unlike a computer's hard drive.

You have opted for option E.
That is to be expected.

But my atoms are not unique,
my consciousness is unique.

Perhaps you disagree because you do not have unique consciousness?
Do you?
hmmm?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

How do you know you are unique? How would you be able to tell if there where more than one of you - all with identical experiences? What would be different?

identical uniqueness?
really?
Perhaps consider the meaning of those two words.

How can you tell that the 'you' that woke up this morning was the same 'you' that went to sleep last night?

That is valid,
but besides the point entirely.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

From the link:
Your awareness is uniquely you.
Your physical atoms are not unique.
So your body is not ‘you.’

I reject this because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the two premises.

Also, demonstrate why atoms have to be unique in order to be a part of something.

Atoms have to be intrinsically unique in order to be part of something ... that is intrinsically unique.
The only way that unique consciousness could be a result of non-unique matter would be
if we had to postulate that inside of every unique person is actually a unique atom that if replicated
would create a non-unique person.

In this way you could actually be conscious of being two bodies aware of one another at the same time.
(Option C)
But then the problem would be, where does this consciousness reside?
It cannot be in either of those atoms (brains) because the consciousness is individually unique,
so it must exist beyond the atoms.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Great Argument. It similar to the classical Indian argument that I am not my body, because the body changes. We don't need to wait for 500 years for a teleporter to find out, in fact the teleporting already happens, every moment the atoms in our body teleport, vanish from their position and reappear in another and yet the "I" still remains. In other words the brain, any other part of the body or the entire body itself cannot be the container for the "I" anymore than a bottomless cup can be a container for water.

Yes, it is essentially the same argument,
but by dressing it up in contemporary ideas of machines and computers
hopefully a few pre-sentient beings will introspect enough to manifest self-awareness.

 

[ratiocinator]

identical uniqueness?
really?
Perhaps consider the meaning of those two words.

OK. And....?

This appears to be an argument from personal incredulity - you cannot imagine how your sense of 'I' can be generated by a physical brain that might (in principle anyway) be duplicated, so it can't be.

That is valid,
but besides the point entirely.

Not really. Your sense of 'you' disappears when you sleep and and then (apparently) returns when you wake. But what would be different if the old 'you' had died and a new one came into existence in the morning - with the same memories, experiences, preferences and so on? It has a direct bearing on teleportation in your thought experiment...

Edit:
Imagine that two 'you's woke up in the morning.