Body, Mind and Soul

[jcrawford]

I am currently working on developing a comprehensive theory of cognition which will account for the existence of man's body, mind and soul, and hereby invite all other posters to reasonably critique or otherwise constructively contribute to the further development of the theory.

It should be presumed and understood from the outset that this scientific experiment is both a scientific and religious work in progress and that any successful development of this theory by current posters will be duly accredited to all those who make reasonable contributions to it's development.

Here is a minimalist account of the theory developed so far by yours truly:


COGNITIVE THEORY of BODY, MIND & SOUL.
by
John Crawford


Initial Premises, Presuppositions and Definitions:

1 BODY consists of physically perceivable sensations of material objects and physical forces.

2 MIND consists of self-conscious cognitive mental processes which intermediate between Body and Soul.

3 SOUL is the essence of self, ego, personality, memory and conscious self-awareness of existence.


Self-evident Postulate and Justification
for Theoretical Premises:

I know (cognize) that I have a brain and nervous system within my body, but have no observable, experiential, testable or scientific way of knowing that my brain or nervous system are capable of knowing anything in the sense that it may be classified as mental, cognitive or self-conscious knowledge.


Further Expositions on, and definitions of,
the Nature, Character, Being, Structure and Essence
of Body, Mind and Soul.


1. BODY:

All physical phenomena which may be reasonably and rationally categorized and classified as being part of the universe which physicists have defined as consisting of material force and mass.


2. MIND

All that which is strictly intellectual, cognitive, conceptual and mental in the realm of consciousness and self-awareness.

Eg: ideas, beliefs, theories, thoughts and knowledge.


3. SOUL

All which pertains to self-consciousness and awareness of self, ego, personhood, individual identity and spiritual existence.

[jcrawford]

Once the existence of the human soul has been scientifically established as fact, other questions pertaining to it and theories about it may be more reasonably entertained and developed.

And now doe you 'scientifically establish' the existance of the human soul.

By the scientific method, of course.

Make observations, hypothesize about the observations, test the hypotheses, and develop a theory based on the several hypotheses. If other observations and hypotheses contradict the theory, then validate those observations and hypotheses and revise the theory.

What kind of experiments do you think should be run, and what are the expected results.

We can expect the results to conform with the theory we develop after conducting scientific experiments on the forum.

What testable statement, if proven true, falsifies the existance of the 'human soul'.

I will leave that experiment up to you to conduct since I already know that I am a human soul.

[Goat]

Once the existence of the human soul has been scientifically established as fact, other questions pertaining to it and theories about it may be more reasonably entertained and developed.

And now doe you 'scientifically establish' the existance of the human soul.

By the scientific method, of course.

Make observations, hypothesize about the observations, test the hypotheses, and develop a theory based on the several hypotheses. If other observations and hypotheses contradict the theory, then validate those observations and hypotheses and revise the theory.

And how do you test for a soul? Give a test. How do you distinguish a 'soul' from the actions of a purely materialistic mind?

What kind of experiments do you think should be run, and what are the expected results.

We can expect the results to conform with the theory we develop after conducting scientific experiments on the forum.

What testable statement, if proven true, falsifies the existance of the 'human soul'.

I will leave that experiment up to you to conduct since I already know that I am a human soul.

In other words, you will make this religious statements, declare they are science, and let others try to figure out how to make it science.

[jcrawford]

And how do you test for a soul? Give a test.

Any psychological or personality test which asks the respondents to answer the questions from the bottom of their hearts and the depth of their souls, will do.

]How do you distinguish a 'soul' from the actions of a purely materialistic mind?

First, you establish the fact that there is no such thing as a "purely materialistic" or natural mind since both mental concepts are strictly metaphysical regarding their supernatural properties and character. Then you establish the soul as that part of our metaphysical and supernatural nature which is the conceptual seat, center, and interpreter of all the activities which our soul admits, desires and wills to occur in our minds.

In other words, you will make this religious statements, declare they are science, and let others try to figure out how to make it science.

Not exclusively, since the cognitive and reflective powers, faculties and capacities of our minds enable us to mentally review and organize all of the information which our brains and souls convey to us, in an intelligent, rational and scientific manner.

Science is just a body of knowledge, you know, and the scientific method of ascertaining, devoloping and restructuring knowledge can be used by anyone with scientific propensities, proclivities, tendencies and leanings, since "science" is not the exlusive domain or property of evolutionary biologists, paleoanthropologists and DNA researchers.

[Goat]

And how do you test for a soul? Give a test.

Any psychological or personality test which asks the respondents to answer the questions from the bottom of their hearts and the depth of their souls, will do.

And how does that seperate the existance from the soul to the purely materialistic actions of a brain? Explain.. stop avoiding the question.

]How do you distinguish a 'soul' from the actions of a purely materialistic mind?

First, you establish the fact that there is no such thing as a "purely materialistic" or natural mind since both mental concepts are strictly metaphysical regarding their supernatural properties and character. Then you establish the soul as that part of our metaphysical and supernatural nature which is the conceptual seat, center, and interpreter of all the activities which our soul admits, desires and wills to occur in our minds.

Prove that statement. I can show that the 'mind' , conciousness and perception can be totally modified and interrupted by simulating the brain, and it can be apparently damaged by damaging the brain. Show me that there is something more than just the brain. Your claims for this are not good enough. You are going to have to back up your statements.

In other words, you will make this religious statements, declare they are science, and let others try to figure out how to make it science.

Not exclusively, since the cognitive and reflective powers, faculties and capacities of our minds enable us to mentally review and organize all of the information which our brains and souls convey to us, in an intelligent, rational and scientific manner.

Science is just a body of knowledge, you know, and the scientific method of ascertaining, devoloping and restructuring knowledge can be used by anyone with scientific propensities, proclivities, tendencies and leanings, since "science" is not the exlusive domain or property of evolutionary biologists, paleoanthropologists and DNA researchers.

No, science is not just a body of knowledge. It also is a methology for testing.. and unless something can be tested, and falsified, then the claim is not science.

You make lots and lots of claims.. yet there doesn't seem to be any substance behind those claims... or at least any scientific substance.

They might be good for a statement of faith, but science demands much more than vague statements.

[jcrawford]

And how do you test for a soul? Give a test.

Any psychological or personality test which asks the respondents to answer the questions from the bottom of their hearts and the depth of their souls, will do.

And how does that seperate the existance from the soul to the purely materialistic actions of a brain? Explain.. stop avoiding the question.

You just demonstrated the comparitive ease by which one can conceptually separate the purely materialistic actions of your "brain" from the purely metaphysical concept you postulated in your previous post below.

]How do you distinguish a 'soul' from the actions of a purely materialistic mind?

First, you establish the fact that there is no such thing as a "purely materialistic" or natural mind since both mental concepts are strictly metaphysical regarding their supernatural properties and character. Then you establish the soul as that part of our metaphysical and supernatural nature which is the conceptual seat, center, and interpreter of all the activities which our soul admits, desires and wills to occur in our minds.

Prove that statement. I can show that the 'mind' , conciousness and perception can be totally modified and interrupted by simulating the brain, and it can be apparently damaged by damaging the brain. Show me that there is something more than just the brain. Your claims for this are not good enough. You are going to have to back up your statements.

You just asserted and proved the metaphysical and supernatural existence of mental concepts such as "mind, consciousness and perception," in your above statement, even though such mental ideas, beliefs and experiences can be altered and damaged by damaging the brain. The evidence of there being something more to you than mere processes, functions or fabrications of your brain is in the fact that your soul and its mental faculties can be both influenced and damaged by physically overstimulating the brain with pharmaceutical narcotics which suppress certain motor activities of the brain.

Science is just a body of knowledge, you know, and the scientific method of ascertaining, devoloping and restructuring knowledge can be used by anyone with scientific propensities, proclivities, tendencies and leanings, since "science" is not the exlusive domain or property of evolutionary biologists, paleoanthropologists and DNA researchers.

No, science is not just a body of knowledge. It also is a methology for testing.. and unless something can be tested, and falsified, then the claim is not science.

Evolutionary theories and cognitive theories both use the same methodology for testing and can be equally tested and falsified.

You make lots and lots of claims.. yet there doesn't seem to be any substance behind those claims... or at least any scientific substance.

You are merely presuming a priori that my soul is insubstantial because its composition does not consist of any material substance which you hypothetically insist on being the sole criteria upon which any scientific system or method of knowledge may be theoretically constructed, believed in or relied upon.

They might be good for a statement of faith, but science demands much more than vague statements.

The only science able to determine the realistic boundaries, methodologies and applications of such mental faculties as faith, reason, intelligence and conceptual knowledge is cognitive science, which alone can classify the epistomological categories which are philosophically and religiously inherent in any ordered system of intellectual thought.

[QED]

Can I sum this up as follows: JC assumes the existence of a soul (self) which uses the physical layer of biology and technology merely to get its message across. This POV does not consider the physical layer to be sufficient to be a "self" hence it supposes a metaphysical component to fulfill this role. In this case we might want to understand the reasoning behind this assumption.

Reason itself is a prerogative of the soul since the brain is only a mechanistic organ which intercepts and translates physical stimuli into mental concepts, beliefs and ideas.

Here you are automatically imposing the same restriction on the brain that we instinctively impose on a computer. But our understanding of computers and other trivial processing devices is far ahead of our understanding of the brain. Invoking the soul is simply plugging a gap with metaphysical filler.

First, you establish the fact that there is no such thing as a "purely materialistic" or natural mind since both mental concepts are strictly metaphysical regarding their supernatural properties and character.

Here you're asserting that "concepts" are a supernatural entity. If asked I'm sure you'd say that they must be -- as brains are just elaborate collections of "unthinking" atoms. But what about "computing" -- must that be supernatural too -- as computers are just particular collections of "noncompeting" atoms?

[jcrawford]

Reason itself is a prerogative of the soul since the brain is only a mechanistic organ which intercepts and translates physical stimuli into mental concepts, beliefs and ideas.

Here you are automatically imposing the same restriction on the brain that we instinctively impose on a computer. But our understanding of computers and other trivial processing devices is far ahead of our understanding of the brain. Invoking the soul is simply plugging a gap with metaphysical filler.

Rather than "invoking the soul," it may help if you think of your essential self, personality, psyche, ego, character, inner being, or what have you, as being that which constitutes the biographical history and make-up of your soul, since the words we use to describe and refer to ourselves are linguistic expressions of our souls.

First, you establish the fact that there is no such thing as a "purely materialistic" or natural mind since both mental concepts are strictly metaphysical regarding their supernatural properties and character.

Here you're asserting that "concepts" are a supernatural entity. If asked I'm sure you'd say that they must be -- as brains are just elaborate collections of "unthinking" atoms. But what about "computing" -- must that be supernatural too -- as computers are just particular collections of "noncompeting" atoms?

The comparison of the electro-magnetic functions of computers and human brains is an excellent analogy to make in order to identify and distinguish between the information processing capacities and faculties of each. One apparent distinction we can make at the outset is that computers are human inventions based on mathematical and electronic principles while the human brain is an organic part of a living organism dependent on oxygen and blood circulation. Man-made computers, not being human but only designed and programmed by humans, can never be said to have a human souls with the capacity to think, feel or act for themselves, since they have neither minds nor conscious sense of self.

[QED]

Here you are automatically imposing the same restriction on the brain that we instinctively impose on a computer. But our understanding of computers and other trivial processing devices is far ahead of our understanding of the brain. Invoking the soul is simply plugging a gap with metaphysical filler.

Rather than "invoking the soul," it may help if you think of your essential self, personality, psyche, ego, character, inner being, or what have you, as being that which constitutes the biographical history and make-up of your soul, since the words we use to describe and refer to ourselves are linguistic expressions of our souls.

Sorry, it didn't help at all. I can see analogs of all those purely "human sounding things" in things that aren't human. Sure there's a sense of self, a "little me" peeing out through the eyes of a bigger "me". But that's no reason to invent a metaphysical entity to account for it.

The comparison of the electro-magnetic functions of computers and human brains is an excellent analogy to make in order to identify and distinguish between the information processing capacities and faculties of each. One apparent distinction we can make at the outset is that computers are human inventions based on mathematical and electronic principles while the human brain is an organic part of a living organism dependent on oxygen and blood circulation.

So? That's a distinction alright, but there can be many other distinctions. Did you know its possible, for example, to make a computer (or Universal Turing Machine to be more precise) out of a Train Set? It may be a dreadful pun, but it introduces us to the notion of "Platform Independence".

Man-made computers, not being human but only designed and programmed by humans, can never be said to have a human souls with the capacity to think, feel or act for themselves, since they have neither minds nor conscious sense of self.

So you say. But this goes back to your initial assumption that only humans can have a "conscious sense of self". Now show me why this is so.

[jcrawford]

Sure there's a sense of self, a "little me" peeing out through the eyes of a bigger "me". But that's no reason to invent a metaphysical entity to account for it.

Your sense of self, conscience and soul were certainly not metaphysically invented by me, since concepts and experience of these "metaphysical entites" were around long before I was born.

But this goes back to your initial assumption that only humans can have a "conscious sense of self". Now show me why this is so.

Only humans can have a conscious sense of their existence as human souls.

Another big difference between humans and lifeless computers is that the human soul has willpower, conscience and a mind to reflect on which impulses, ideas and beliefs to act on whereas computers are created by humans to function as designed and programmed to.

[Goat]

Sure there's a sense of self, a "little me" peeing out through the eyes of a bigger "me". But that's no reason to invent a metaphysical entity to account for it.

Your sense of self, conscience and soul were certainly not metaphysically invented by me, since concepts and experience of these "metaphysical entites" were around long before I was born.

But this goes back to your initial assumption that only humans can have a "conscious sense of self". Now show me why this is so.

Only humans can have a conscious sense of their existence as human souls.

Another big difference between humans and lifeless computers is that the human soul has willpower, conscience and a mind to reflect on which impulses, ideas and beliefs to act on whereas computers are created by humans to function as designed and programmed to.

And only dolphins have their awarness of the dolphin souls, and only elephants have awareness of their elephant souls.. and only cats have awareness of their feline souls.

And computers have electric souls and dream of electric sheep.