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.

[Katsuro]

jcrawford wrote:

Of course it does, since your soul chose to relate and respond to it.

lol yes thats definite proof. My soul didn't chose to relate and respond to anything, my MIND did. Again you seem to be trying to use attributes of the mind to prove the existence of a soul. My responding to this does not prove i have a soul, it proves I have a mind and a consciousness. As already pointed out, you seem to be making the mistake of starting out with the assumption there is such a thing as a soul, something there is so far no evidence to suggest exists in the religious sense of the word.

jcrawford wrote:

Does Quixotic have a unified theory of reality which enables him to determine what is real like I do?

What is more real than a Christian scientist? An atheistic scientist?

You know rightly what we meant by a real scientist - an actual, qualified scientist employed in the study of science. Some scientist may be Christian, but from what I've seen of the field of "christian science" itself, I'm of the opinion that "Christian pseudo-scientist" would be a more accurate term.

jcrawford wrote:

No one has ever demonstrated Darwin's or Freud's theories, and yet they became famous on the merits of their humanist fantasies alone.

No one has ever demonstrated Darwin's theories? Umm yes they have, many times in more than one field of science, particularly biology and genetics. How can you claim no one has demonstrated Darwins theories? Such demonstrations are not exactly difficult to find out about. Even if you do nothing except watch too much discovery channel or national geographic you'll come across some. I think you may be suffering from a severe case of apriorism.

Also, popularity is not proof of truthfulness. Hundreds of years ago most people thought the world was flat (it is wrong to say everyone did), but they weren't right. Darwin's theories do not rely on their popularity, they rely on the mountains of evidence to back them up.

[jcrawford]

Firstly, what does that even mean? Validity by humanist fantasies?

Wow!

With regards to what i think you were getting at:

Darwins theories have been verified through many means. Our study of the natural world and the fossil record is totally in line with the core of his theory of evolution by natural selection, without a single counter example. Evolution has been seen in the lab in bacteria and is the only explanation for how complex systems can arrive from less complex systems. it is an elegant solution to solving how we came to be as we are, it may be wrong, but it is the closest thing we have so far. Just saying "God did it" asks more questions that it answers, it does not solve any problems at all.


In the case of Freud, many of his ideas and theories have been made defunct by studies in the fields of evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, neuroscience etc etc. Just to show that science is by it's nature progressive. Everyone is trying to prove everything false all the time, to enable the creation of better models, even in the case of their own work. Taking on board reasonable criticism and argument is an integral part of the scientific process. Freud is only famous because he is the father of psychology, not because his theories have stood the test of time.

You seemed to have missed the point of humanism also. One corner of it being a basis on scientific research not religious dogma. Humanism has no fantasies, that is the point, it is not self deluding. If tomorrow it was demonstrated that there is in fact a God and you will go to hell if you don't worship him then the humanist attitude to this would be to worship him for the sake of people. But no such demonstration of anything super natural, god, soul, heaven , hell, angels daemons, pixes, ghosts etc has ever been demonstrated ....ever...just to repeat....ever. This started of with you having what you called a theory, testing it through these boards. Well it has many many holes in it, now just because we are disputing it you think you are still right just because others have done the same. if you want to create a credible theory you need to look at evidence, build it around that, then let people pull it to pieces to see if it stands up.

Where is the demonstrable evidence or proof of anything you say?

Since there is none, I credit all of your statements above to your devout faith in the fantasies, myths and beliefs of autonomous humanism.

[jcrawford]

What is more real than a Christian scientist? An atheistic scientist?

A scientist that does not take into account their religion when analysing the data.

That is an admission of scientific and religious prejudice on your part solely based on your a prior presuppositions about the true nature and purpose of both knowledge and science.

According to your limited definition of science, scientists can know nothing other than what your limited definition of science dictates what they can know.

Sounds like a form of scientific mind control to me.

In the role of 'scientist' they are non-theistic.

Is that one of the dogmatic doctrines of the so-called "scientific method?

What they believe in their personal life is irrelavent.

Thanks. I'm sure scientists appreciate your regard for their personal lives since they must have no personal existence when at work according to you.

Nothing personal, mind you, but do you mind my asking if you have a personality?

[jcrawford]

Totally agree. Belief is irrelevant. if evidence contradicts what you believe, change your belief, not the evidence.

Belief cannot be categorically irrelevent, since without faith and sustained belief, no knowledge may be held to be consistent for more than a day or two.

When the evidence presented in a case is not believable, then no case for the evidence may be made and the jury decides the outcome of the matter on the basis of their beliefs concerning the "evidence."

Ever witness the OJ trial or any other legal case in a court of law?

[jcrawford]

jcrawford wrote:

Of course it does, since your soul chose to relate and respond to it.

lol yes thats definite proof. My soul didn't chose to relate and respond to anything, my MIND did.

At least you admit to the cognitive and reactionary power of your MIND, and don't transfer and assign its self-conscious propensities, properties and activities to some neurological function or electro-chemical stimulation in your brain.

Again you seem to be trying to use attributes of the mind to prove the existence of a soul.

Why else would God give us mind, if not to know (cognize) the difference between body and soul?

My responding to this does not prove i have a soul, it proves I have a mind and a consciousness.

Add a conscience to your conscious mind, and you have the better half of a human soul; the will and emotions constituting the other half.

As already pointed out, you seem to be making the mistake of starting out with the assumption there is such a thing as a soul, something there is so far no evidence to suggest exists in the religious sense of the word.

Since we all start out with basic assumptions (presuppositions) about the potential or limited nature of our cognitive and observational powers, I presume you are as human as the rest of us and as prone to being guided by your own presuppostions about the true nature of everything under consideration as everyone else is.

That said, what are your presupposititions about the capacity for human knowledge anyway, or are you not that epistomologically self-conscious about how you have the absolute authority to claim to know anything about anything, let alone everything about the true nature of your own ontological being?

[McCulloch]

Again you seem to be trying to use attributes of the mind to prove the existence of a soul.

Why else would God give us mind, if not to know (cognize) the difference between body and soul?

Another example of Begging the question (petito principii). It has not been demonstrated that God gave us a mind.

However, I would think that any reasonably cognizant theist could come up with more that a few possible alternate reasons that God would have given humans minds.

[Cathar1950]

No problem, since my theory demonstrates the existence of our souls.

lol. It doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort.

Of course it does, since your soul chose to relate and respond to it.

Does Quixotic have a unified theory of reality which enables him to determine what is real like I do?

We could write a book on Jcrawford’s “Begging the Question”. This seems to be your methodology. I have yet to see you come up with an adequate definition of a soul that alone any kind of unified theory of anything. You can’t even show how a soul relates or responds. Your pseudo theory is a presumption of the soul and your method or demonstration seems to be one liner questions that make no sense.

Freud is only famous because he is the father of psychology, not because his theories have stood the test of time.

Sounds like a form of scientific mind control to me.

I would say your doctrines are good examples of mind control and indoctrination.
Not unified theories but fantasy chasing its tail.

Belief cannot be categorically irrelevent, since without faith and sustained belief, no knowledge may be held to be consistent for more than a day or two.

You are mixing up the concepts of religious faith and belief with thinking.

[jcrawford]

Again you seem to be trying to use attributes of the mind to prove the existence of a soul.

Why else would God give us mind, if not to know (cognize) the difference between body and soul?

Another example of Begging the question (petito principii). It has not been demonstrated that God gave us a mind.

It is demonstrated by the fact that an intelligent cognitive scientist like myself can presuppose a God-given mind to go with my God-given soul since those who presuppose the existence of all intelligence in their brains are just begging the question of intelligent design being a property and characteristic of their brains.

For further demonstrable truth of the existence of our minds and souls, consult either Nave's, Vine's or Strong's concordances.

[jcrawford]

I have yet to see you come up with an adequate definition of a soul that alone any kind of unified theory of anything. You can’t even show how a soul relates or responds. Your pseudo theory is a presumption of the soul and your method or demonstration seems to be one liner questions that make no sense.

Adequate definitions and explanations of what constitutes soul, mind and conscience can be found in most biblical concordances.

My theory only establishes them as scientific concepts and phenomena.

I would say your doctrines are good examples of mind control and indoctrination.
Not unified theories but fantasy chasing its tail.

I would say the same thing about the doctrines of Freud and Darwin.

Belief cannot be categorically irrelevent, since without faith and sustained belief, no knowledge may be held to be consistent for more than a day or two.

You are mixing up the concepts of religious faith and belief with thinking.

I am trying to sort them out for you since you have no theory of knowledge which clarifies, explains or even identifies any of the so-called categorical differences between religion, faith, belief and so-called scientific thinking.

All concepts (religious or scientific) are metaphysical and supernatural occurances since they have no material substance which can be objectively studied by physicists.

[McCulloch]

For further demonstrable truth of the existence of our minds and souls, consult either Nave's, Vine's or Strong's concordances.

Concordances only prove the existence of words in the Bible. I know what the Bible says, I disagree with it.