The implausibility of brainless minds

[Copernicus]

Originally Posted by strikeviperMKII

It is the bridge between the two, an interpreter and a translator.

Why would a translator be necessary? In any case, bridges are inanimate things, whereas translators are agents that make decisions about information and express it in a different language. Out of curiosity, would you consider animals like chimpanzees and dolphins to have "minds"? If so, would they also need souls to act as translators?

None.

I asked what you felt the properties of the soul were. You just called it a "bridge" and a "translator". Now you say it has no properties. If it has no properties, then how can you describe it as if it did?

Does it? As a separate entity, no, because it is not a separate entity. The mind is the one that sees itself as reactionary. The soul is an observer, but its observations only reveal things about itself.

OK, you claim that the mind is "not a separate entity" but that it is an "observer" that can reflect on itself. To me, it looks like you are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, it is not separate from the mind. On the other hand, it seems to be able to act as an interpreter for the mind.

So here's a question for you. If a person goes crazy and loses the ability to distinguish right from wrong, what happens to the soul? Does its ability to mediate between mind and brain become weakened or broken? What about when a person gets drunk and makes poor choices that he or she would not normally make while sober? Is the soul impaired in any way?

It is what it is. Memory has no importance to the soul.

To act as a translating agency, it would need to have some knowledge--memory of something--by which it could perform an interpretation.

It is what 'feels' them in the first place. The mind translates that into the things we call emotions.

Then you must believe that tranquilizers have an effect on the soul, not to mention other drugs that affect emotions. Since higher animals appear to have emotions, that would suggest that they also have souls, no?

Physical ones? That's body, is it not?

If the soul is mediating between the brain and the mind, would it not have to have access to sensations that the mind experiences? What if someone pokes you in the eye? How does the soul translate that into anger?

Survives? Death does not destroy the soul. Changes how it sees itself, yes. Salvation is not an end result, but a continuing process. Constant renewal, constant death.

At this point, you are definitely treating the soul as if it were a separate entity with memories. And you seem to have developed a different understanding of what happens after death than that held by most Catholics. They and other Christians typically believe that the human spirit survives intact with memories of what it was in life. They expect to be reunited with loved ones after they die. You, apparently, do not believe this.

[work in progress]

Originally Posted by Willamena

I didn't.

Okay then, why shouldn't animals...or at least the higher self-conscious animals receive the same afterlife as humans? If it's a just-so argument, that would only serve to cement the impression of the JudeoChristian deity being a capricious, spiteful and arbitrary force in this universe.

[work in progress]

Originally Posted by Madhuri

Yes, of course. But as far as I know, most religions seem to make a distinction between the material mind and the mind/consciousness/soul that exists separate from that mind.

But there is no evidence that such a thing exists. There should be something that could indicate a missing ingredient in the brain-scanning tests on subjects performing mental tasks. A soul is a concept that is declared by religious tradition that does not show evidence for itself actually existing.

One could argue anything if they so wish to, but I would propose that to argue that the authors of the scripture had no perception of spirit is speculative only. If that argument were based on the fact that the nature of spirit isn't detailed scientifically, then I would easily dismiss such an argument based on a important point: religion's purpose is not to understand the world or reality intellectually, it is to provide a way for the individual to experience it.

I believe that science is important, and Veda allows plenty of room for people to explore the world through science. But can you expect to end your life understanding reality and all that is? I doubt it. I doubt that anyone will ever get that far through science, even if we do learn a lot and have a great time with it.

For my part, I make a distinction between whether religious beliefs and traditions are true, and whether or not they are useful and beneficial. This seems to be the divide right now among atheists. Some, like the popular atheist book writers who get all of the media attention, are evangelical about materialism and stamping out supernatural beliefs. But many people seem to have a strong attachment to the belief in a better world to come...either through ascending to some sort of heaven, or to get a 2nd chance at having a better life through reincarnation. If we consider that most of the people in the World are struggling through their daily lives, working long hours, going without enough food to feed their families, dealing with unsafe drinking water, polluted air etc., the secular humanist message of "live this life to the fullest" comes across as a cold slap in the face! But, even where I live, if I happen to be talking to someone who strongly believes popular books written on life-after-death stories, I am reluctant to try very hard to convert them to my own materialist take on the subject.

Of course not, especially when nobody takes seriously the studies that are conducted. For example, the documentaries following people who claim to have remembered past lives. These get complete dismissal. Of course, the claimants could be lying. Dismiss.

The studies require more than testimonials, because so many of the stories were the product of hypnotic regression, which in more recent decades has revealed how easily subjects can be led by therapists to provide the results the therapist desires. A psychologist like John Mack, can find all sorts of people who have been abducted by space aliens; there is also a series of scandals involving hundreds of people falsely accused of sexually molesting children because of the results of hypnotic regression; and I think the same thing applies to the hypnotic regressions to past lives.

Most of the stories offer vague evidence to back the claims of past lives...much of it includes information that could easily be accessed and retained in memory. And whatever evidence is provided, a science of reincarnation, out-of-body experiences, souls etc. would have to provide a scientific theory to resolve the mind-body problem that has dogged all claims of supernatural minds for thousands of years.

The guy who claimed to go his whole life without eating or drinking is dismissed because the scientists conducting the research must be biased and cheating. Dismissed. Need I go on?

Well, that's because a lot of fraud goes on here, and a number of so called holy men have been unmasked as magicians and charlatans.

Scientific testing of Yogis and Buddhist monks, which started over 40 years ago, has acknowledged that they have developed the means to control basic autonomic systems such as heartbeat and metabolic functions. But, to go to the next step and declare that someone can violate all of the known laws of nature by going a life time (or even a prolonged time) without eating and drinking is obvious grounds for skepticism. It's not just a matter of looking for evidence of a scam -- it's also about the need to pass a very high standard of evidence that would require tossing out everything we've learned so far. I see this as similar to the controversy of the faster-than-light neutrinos a few weeks ago. If a particle with a slight amount of mass could travel faster than the space/time constant, that would upend Einstein's Relativity theories that have been applied and verified for the last 75 years. So, a lot of physicists now aren't too surprised that the speed differential appears to be the result of measurement and calibration errors.

[St Giordano Bruno]

Originally Posted by strikeviperMKII

Does it? As a separate entity, no, because it is not a separate entity. The mind is the one that sees itself as reactionary. The soul is an observer, but its observations only reveal things about itself.

I just see the "soul" as an observation effect to create some sense of time and place and an emergent property at a critical time phase in the universe's history and I personally see that has nothing to do with religions as it carry's not burden of sin or guilt.

It is what it is. Memory has no importance to the soul.

I inclined to think it has a very limited short term memory in comparison to age scales on a cosmic scale. It requires the existence of a complex brain to harbour these memories and at death it switches to total amnesia as if it had never been born at all in the first place. There is no divine judgement or anything like that we face in some ethereal afterlife.

It is what 'feels' them in the first place. The mind translates that into the things we call emotions.

I just can't help thinking emotions are more brain based and we cannot advance those emotions to another level to some ethereal afterlife.

Survives? Death does not destroy the soul. Changes how it sees itself, yes. Salvation is not an end result, but a continuing process. Constant renewal, constant death.

Death totally destroys memory so much so you total unaware of any extant identity so you become totally unaware that you ever existed at all. But death is a fundamental proponent to the cycle of life and has absolutely nothing to do with punishment in spite of it been all too frequently portrayed as a punishment in the Bible and some society's justice system with the implementation of capital punishment. If it were not for the process of death and dying the earth could be overrun with immortal trilobites or something to that effect.

[strikeviperMKII]

Originally Posted by Copernicus

Why would a translator be necessary? In any case, bridges are inanimate things, whereas translators are agents that make decisions about information and express it in a different language. Out of curiosity, would you consider animals like chimpanzees and dolphins to have "minds"? If so, would they also need souls to act as translators?

The mind translates between the body and soul. The soul does not translate anything.

I asked what you felt the properties of the soul were. You just called it a "bridge" and a "translator". Now you say it has no properties. If it has no properties, then how can you describe it as if it did?

See above. Mind is the translator, not the soul.

OK, you claim that the mind is "not a separate entity" but that it is an "observer" that can reflect on itself. To me, it looks like you are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, it is not separate from the mind. On the other hand, it seems to be able to act as an interpreter for the mind.

Body, mind, soul. Three and one. One. Not three different parts, not three things mashed together. Three and one at the same time.

So here's a question for you. If a person goes crazy and loses the ability to distinguish right from wrong, what happens to the soul? Does its ability to mediate between mind and brain become weakened or broken? What about when a person gets drunk and makes poor choices that he or she would not normally make while sober? Is the soul impaired in any way?

The mind is the between part, as I have already said. The mind does have its own 'self' called many things, I call it the ego, and that part does take control, more often than it needs to. As for having a 'broken' mind, then that is what is. The soul is not broken, but it is affected.

To act as a translating agency, it would need to have some knowledge--memory of something--by which it could perform an interpretation.

Not if you see what is, rather than ideas of what is.

Then you must believe that tranquilizers have an effect on the soul, not to mention other drugs that affect emotions. Since higher animals appear to have emotions, that would suggest that they also have souls, no?

What of it? A 'higher animal's' soul is their business. If they have one, it is not mine to divine any meaning from it. I have my hands full with my own.

If the soul is mediating between the brain and the mind, would it not have to have access to sensations that the mind experiences? What if someone pokes you in the eye? How does the soul translate that into anger?

No because it does not mediate, as I have said. The mind does that.

At this point, you are definitely treating the soul as if it were a separate entity with memories. And you seem to have developed a different understanding of what happens after death than that held by most Catholics. They and other Christians typically believe that the human spirit survives intact with memories of what it was in life. They expect to be reunited with loved ones after they die. You, apparently, do not believe this.

The common belief is that life is good, and death is bad. So we create this afterlife, which is really just life again, so we can stay in the 'good'. It is a lie that we use to comfort ourselves, and many people I have talked with agree with me on this. Sounds like you do too.

The idea is we pass through life, into death. The soul works differently. It passes from death into life.

Death is an experience. Death is the process of being done unto. It is the great beyond, the experience of the timeless moment of nakedness before God. To regard death as a means to reunite with loved ones is silly; death reveals that you never left.

[strikeviperMKII]

Originally Posted by St Giordano Bruno

I just see the "soul" as an observation effect to create some sense of time and place and an emergent property at a critical time phase in the universe's history and I personally see that has nothing to do with religions as it carry's not burden of sin or guilt.

It carries humanity. Mortality. Weakness. Vulnerability. That is what original sin is.

I inclined to think it has a very limited short term memory in comparison to age scales on a cosmic scale. It requires the existence of a complex brain to harbour these memories and at death it switches to total amnesia as if it had never been born at all in the first place. There is no divine judgement or anything like that we face in some ethereal afterlife.

The only judge you will face is yourself.

I just can't help thinking emotions are more brain based and we cannot advance those emotions to another level to some ethereal afterlife.

It would actually be 'retreating' them, if you get my meaning. To go towards the soul is to become more basic, closer to what is, than the 'original sin' we have around the soul.

Death totally destroys memory so much so you total unaware of any extant identity so you become totally unaware that you ever existed at all. But death is a fundamental proponent to the cycle of life and has absolutely nothing to do with punishment in spite of it been all too frequently portrayed as a punishment in the Bible and some society's justice system with the implementation of capital punishment. If it were not for the process of death and dying the earth could be overrun with immortal trilobites or something to that effect.

You cannot call 'non-existence' 'non-awareness'. It is the absence of existence, which includes non-awareness. Life is. Death is not. You must have both.

[Copernicus]

Originally Posted by strikeviperMKII

The mind translates between the body and soul. The soul does not translate anything.

I asked you to explain how you thought the mind and the sould interacted. You said: "It is the bridge between the two, an interpreter and a translator." I thought that the antecedent of "it" was the "soul", since that was what I was trying to get your thoughts about. I did not know what you meant by "soul". So thanks for clarifying. It's OK to use full noun phrases rather than pronouns to clarify your meaning. Do you agree with me that emotions are properties of the mind and are associated with physical brain activity? It would help to get clarification on that, because you sometimes seem to say that emotions are properties of the "soul". I'm trying to understand what you think the "essence" of a person is such that it is separate from the mind.

Body, mind, soul. Three and one. One. Not three different parts, not three things mashed together. Three and one at the same time.

That would make more sense if you just said that a "person" is the "one" that unifies the body, mind, and soul. Fine. I know what a body (and the body part known as a "brain") is, and I know what a mind is. I do not get what you think the soul is. One's sense of self-identity? The sense of self-awareness? Everything I can think of seems to be a property of the mind and dependent on physical brain activity. Merely saying that there is a third component strikes me as unnwarranted and unnecessary.

The mind is the between part, as I have already said. The mind does have its own 'self' called many things, I call it the ego, and that part does take control, more often than it needs to. As for having a 'broken' mind, then that is what is. The soul is not broken, but it is affected.

OK, you think that the mind and the soul sort of compete with each other. Sometimes the mind ('ego') is in control. Sometimes the soul is. Is the mind capable of committing sins that the soul cannot be blamed for? And should we not expect to see some evidence of this 'takeover' effect in brain scans? Do you believe that the soul is an agency with volition? That would imply an ability to think rationally. To make decisions.

Not if you see what is, rather than ideas of what is.

Whoa! Not so fast! You said earlier that the mind was the translator. My reply was going with my mistaken assumption that you meant the soul to be the translator. Minds have memory. In your opinion, souls do not, right? So why do you seem to be denying here that the mind has memory?

What of it? A 'higher animal's' soul is their business. If they have one, it is not mine to divine any meaning from it. I have my hands full with my own.

Since we are evolved from less intelligent animals, I was just wondering if you felt we were unique from other animals in that we have souls in addition to minds. I am not asking you to divine meaning from it, just to tell me what you believe about such things.

The common belief is that life is good, and death is bad. So we create this afterlife, which is really just life again, so we can stay in the 'good'. It is a lie that we use to comfort ourselves, and many people I have talked with agree with me on this. Sounds like you do too.

I'm still trying to understand what you believe. I certainly do believe that the mind dies with the brain, but you call yourself a Catholic. It is interesting to know how your views differ from more conventional doctrine. Are you saying that the Roman Catholic doctrine is wrong about life after death?

The idea is we pass through life, into death. The soul works differently. It passes from death into life.

What is the "life" of a soul like? Does it have memories of the past? Emotions? Moods? Sensations? Is this your interpretation of what Catholic doctrine ought to be?

Death is an experience. Death is the process of being done unto. It is the great beyond, the experience of the timeless moment of nakedness before God. To regard death as a means to reunite with loved ones is silly; death reveals that you never left.

Here you seem to be thinking of the soul in a conventional sense--a mind that can experience revelation and nakedness--perhaps other things. That would certainly qualify as what I have been calling a "brainless mind".

[St Giordano Bruno]

Originally Posted by strikeviperMKII

It carries humanity. Mortality. Weakness. Vulnerability. That is what original sin is.



The only judge you will face is yourself.



It would actually be 'retreating' them, if you get my meaning. To go towards the soul is to become more basic, closer to what is, than the 'original sin' we have around the soul.



You cannot call 'non-existence' 'non-awareness'. It is the absence of existence, which includes non-awareness. Life is. Death is not. You must have both.

I cannot possibly believe in the concept of original sin because it is base on a fallacy the rebelling of Adam and Eve by eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden - that never happened. It is a complete fairy tale. I believe the soul is intrinsically innocent it does not wear any burden of original sin at all. By "soul" I am just referring to the "sense of self" in is most primal state such as the first state of awareness of a new born? Everyone is born completely innocent and guilt only comes later as the person has some sense of ethic. A baby cannot possibly have any sense of ethic.

As for death, well death is a part of life it is part of the life cycle. Just imagine if some astronaut discovered a cemetery on Mars it would be strong evidence there was once life there; even an intelligent civilization that once thrived there. But since there is no evidence of any cemetery on Mars there is no life. There is plenty of lifelessness but no death. Lifelessness and death are completely different.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Copernicus

Do you agree with me that emotions are properties of the mind and are associated with physical brain activity?

Now that's an interesting sub-topic. It's usually the case that emotions are properties of the heart, the non-literal one, and associated with the entire body. They affect chemistry, neurology (not just the brain), and the functioning of particular organs.

[iamfact]

In Advaita Vedanta (one of the most influential forms of Hinduism), the word "cosmic brain" is grossly misused. Brahman is not a personal deity, without form and without brain who thinks and creates the universe. Instead, Brahman is supposed to be an impersonal, absolute reality, of which the nature is of intelligence, and non-dual awareness. A rough analogy would be to that of a nucleus. It is not a brain as we would think, but it is for all purposes, the brain of a cell. Instead of being a certain part of the universe that is thinking, Brahman is the universe itself and it's ever-existing "intelligence."