11
   

Is the mind the same as the brain, or do we have souls?

 
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 01:23 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Maybe... Still, it's a form of intellectual masturbation deny the glaringly obvious, eg the cogito.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 01:53 am
@Olivier5,
I don't remember any with suicide belts, despite the fact that football is a religion for some.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 03:07 am
@fresco,
So what? Suicide is but one way to die.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 04:37 am
@fresco,
Let me put it this way Fresco the trigger is not the cause, and PTSD is not exclusive to War Veterans anymore...
...terrorism is not a new invention, nor is Religion but the meme has found social echo now, not before...as for after life well...let me tell ya a secret, nobody believes in it, specially those who live a happy life on Earth...Eutanasia is not fashionable yet...dont confuse triggers with causes...you guys want a quick escape goat, a fast explanation for all the dementia, the sheer madness of the modern world...but there is no simple one source causal factor, no linear accounting to be done...
The World, its economy and social structuring, needs a 180° degrees turn.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 06:38 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
The World, its economy and social structuring, needs a 180° degrees turn.

I, Boko Haram, and ISIS agree with you but we are all probably thinking of different turns.

Boko Haram roughly translated is 'Western education is evil'. Although what those assholes are doing is completely wrong, they have a point. Much of what we teach is completely wrong.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 06:45 am
This thread specifically mentions 'souls'. I'm leaving the current contributors to wallow around in the quagmire of pseudo-sociology if 'souls' is no longer on the agenda.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 07:10 am
@fresco,
Maybe "souls" are the reason why materialist types distrust their own mind enough to deny it?

(still trying to understand the rathet bizarre "self-denial" phenomenon)

In this hypothesis, materialists may have a fundamental problem with the religious connotations that they see in the concept of "mind". Eg the concept of mind points to something immaterial, and that would presumably annoy materialists...
0 Replies
 
onevoice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 07:15 am
@fresco,
Quote:
At this point I repeat that only 'the religious' have anything to say about the status of 'souls', and only to each other !
...Except perhaps I should add today that a concept of 'soul' is directly responsible for some religious atrocities... Sad


Hi Fresco, I'm so sorry for not getting back. I got caught up on another track for a quick minute. I still would like to get back to the original post I was going to finish responding to but saw this while looking.

Quote:
Except perhaps I should add today that a concept of 'soul' is directly responsible for some religious atrocities.


Wow! Now this is something to think about. (No sarcasm intended.) Would you mind explaining what you mean by this? I want to make sure I am understanding you correctly. Smile
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 07:30 am
@fresco,
Sounds like you think it's just an artifact of language but I think our having souls is the only reason we can contemplate mind and brain (or 'pseudo-sociology).
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 08:28 am
@onevoice,
I thought my meaning was pretty clear. It is another version of Harris's accusation of all religions with the concept of 'an afterlife' (presumably inhabited by 'souls') of giving succour to ( i.e. giving a 'rational' basis for) the actions of fanatics dissatisfied with 'this life'. Nor can the non-fanatic believers claim any 'moral' jurisdiction over the extremists since the rationality of 'this wicked world' is common to them both making the fanatic 'the more moral crusader' in his own eyes.
onevoice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 08:46 am
@fresco,
I merely wanted to you state your case more clearly.

Quote:
Except perhaps I should add today that a concept of 'soul' is directly responsible for some religious atrocities.


Am I hearing you say that the religous are the cause for all our worlds hate crimes? That is sure what it sounds like to me.

Edit: No I am not, because I misread that. Lol Let me rephrase that... Am I to understand that you are making an affiliation between religion and hate crimes?/
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 09:08 am
@Leadfoot,
'Just an artifact of language' completely misses the point about the central role of language in constructing what we think 'our world' is composed of. If you research the 'non representalist view of languge' and 'the coherence theory of truth' you will find extensive elaboration of alternatives to naive realism.
All words represent nodes of semantic import within communicative communities with mutual needs. Without those needs, and without specification of those communities, words have no 'meaning'. The word 'brain' is used in the community we might loosely call 'neuroscientists', whereas the word 'mind' has philosophical associations with 'self identity' and 'thought', neither of which is isomorphic to specific brain processes despite the efforts of neuroscientists to make them so. Indeed the connotations of 'mind' have as yet only psychological and social significance (as for example in the phrase 'he must be out of his mind'). As for 'soul', this word clearly has a linkage with the celestial culpability aspects one's mind as a free agent' in some religious communities. Since my 'self identity' is not a function of such a community, the word has no more semantic import for me other than as a cultural curiosity.


fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 09:18 am
@onevoice,
No. I have not said 'religions' per se are responsible for 'hate crimes'. I have said that some aspects of religion are used to justify or rationalize such crimes. My view is that religions are cognitive opiates, which may have appealing psychological benefits or palliative qualities, but like all opiates can be sociologically pernicious. Specifically, the 'aspects' here are concerned with the concept of 'soul' as a transcendent vehicle for the concept of 'identity' commonly associated with 'mind'.
onevoice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 09:22 am
@fresco,
I get you. Smile I was merely trying to point something out. Have a great day Fresco. Smile

Nothing like kicking up a little dust... Lol
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 10:45 am
@Leadfoot,
Note that the 'contemplative mode' of which you speak can various claims as to its foundations. 'Transcendent levels of consciousness' is one possibility, which can for some imply an upper boundary of a unitary 'holistic consciousness' . BTW This division between 'individuality' and 'unity' is reflected in differential interpretations of the Vedantic term 'atman', which is related to Neo's point above about 'soul as breath'. But such analysis vaporizes into 'ineffability' when one considers that language 'segments reality' ...i.e. it is the antithesis of holism.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 03:22 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
'Just an artifact of language' completely misses the point about the central role of language in constructing what we think 'our world' is composed of. If you research the 'non representalist view of languge' and 'the coherence theory of truth' you will find extensive elaboration of alternatives to naive realism.

You know, if the only support of your POV is references to long dead guys or other's philosophies in an effort to give your view legitimacy, what's the point of conversing here? You might as well say 'I agree with these guys' and give a list of links. Most people come here to bounce their POV against others which is an honest approach.

The only thing you have said here is that you think views other than your own are 'naïve'. WTF do YOU think and why?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2016 07:37 pm
@Leadfoot,
The funny deal about Fresco is that every word that others use is insignificant except his own construct...a laugh on its face value, a contradiction in terms...I would love to ear him say it in public in a conference and be able to interject him directly without a chance to manoeuvre around...but then forums are what he does...
would be great to do a skype debate with him and publish it here or on youtube... I am confident enough on the laughter that such a clash would raise.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2016 12:58 am
I sympathize with those unlike me who don't get the chance for live public philosophical debate on a regular basis at an intellectual level somewhat 'superior' to what goes on here. In such a context, POV's unsupported by references to the literature, are rightly given short shrift.

If anybody has researched anything more with respect to the thread title I will be pleased to comment. Until then, I'll let you continue with what Wittgenstein called Geschwatz. The misunderstanding of technical terms like 'naive' serves to illustrate the point.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2016 03:48 am
@fresco,
We appreciate the sympathy.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2016 08:48 am
@imanfattima,
Can you define (your interpretation) of mind, brain and soul, please?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

what is memory? - Discussion by Icemana5
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
The purpose of the brain - Question by yovav
Weird brain - Question by glowworm
Blue Brain Project - Discussion by edgarblythe
Brain Evolution - Discussion by Evolutions
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/17/2021 at 02:25:51