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]

You are attributing the fact you can 'think' and have a mind with a metaphysical concept of a soul.

The fact that Mind and Soul are both metaphysical concepts doesn't mean that they are not real entities or that mental activity in my Mind is not a function and aspect of my living soul.

I know current and popular thinking believes that "thinking" is a product of brainpower, but if so, then what you think about your self, ego, personality, psyche, conscience and willpower is also just a product of your brain for which there is no more physical evidence than there is to support the claim that God causes you to think.

Does your metaphysical concept of a soul differ from having a mind and emotions?

My concept of Soul is that it consists of emotions, willpower, memories and experiences, and that Mind is the conscious capacity of our Soul to objectively reflect on and communicate, it's own experience and existence of self-being.

Using Freud's concepts of Id, Ego and Superego, I would envision the Soul as a supernatural composition of all three entities, without assigning any other Freudian concepts to the specific functions which he alone attributed to them.

Do you, for example attribute the characteristic of 'immortal' to it,and think it surivies death?

That is no more a concern or part of my theory than the origin of the first living organism on earth was to Darwin's theory.

[jcrawford]

So are deaf-mutes souls in question since they cannot verbalize?

Since Soul is an attribute of the general human condition, it goes without saying that all humans are souls, whether whether deaf, dumb or just plain old ignorant and unbelieving.

Do parrots have souls since some can talk? Does the fact that some apes have been taught sign language mean they have souls or is it that your inability to understand sign cloud your judgement?

Parrots and apes only mimic human language or behavior and that ability should never be confused with or considered as evidence that they either possess the intellectual faculties of human souls or are capable of becoming human souls through mutation, natural selection or any other "evolutionary" processes, which are only known to exist in the minds of some human souls.

[Goat]

You are attributing the fact you can 'think' and have a mind with a metaphysical concept of a soul.

The fact that Mind and Soul are both metaphysical concepts doesn't mean that they are not real entities or that mental activity in my Mind is not a function and aspect of my living soul.

I know current and popular thinking believes that "thinking" is a product of brainpower, but if so, then what you think about your self, ego, personality, psyche, conscience and willpower is also just a product of your brain for which there is no more physical evidence than there is to support the claim that God causes you to think.

Does your metaphysical concept of a soul differ from having a mind and emotions?

My concept of Soul is that it consists of emotions, willpower, memories and experiences, and that Mind is the conscious capacity of our Soul to objectively reflect on and communicate, it's own experience and existence of self-being.

Using Freud's concepts of Id, Ego and Superego, I would envision the Soul as a supernatural composition of all three entities, without assigning any other Freudian concepts to the specific functions which he alone attributed to them.

Do you, for example attribute the characteristic of 'immortal' to it,and think it surivies death?

That is no more a concern or part of my theory than the origin of the first living organism on earth was to Darwin's theory.

Then, as far as I can see, 'Soul' is just an added term for 'Brain action', and does not contribute any further benefits.

[jcrawford]

Do you, for example attribute the characteristic of 'immortal' to it,and think it surivies death?

That is no more a concern or part of my theory than the origin of the first living organism on earth was to Darwin's theory.

Then, as far as I can see, 'Soul' is just an added term for 'Brain action', and does not contribute any further benefits.

The only way for you to rationally and logically substitute "brain action" for Soul, is to deny the mental capacities and functions of your own soul, to the detriment of your soul by the establishment of your soul's Brain as the objective qualifier of your soul's subjective existence to it.

That is called brain-bound and tautological thinking by objective cognitive scientists like myself because it subjugates your cognitive abilities and humanity to the dictates of your physical brain or whatever else neurologists have to say about your functioning as a person and the state of your mental health.

Lot's of luck next time you visit a state-licensed psychiatrist, psychologist or are visited by a state social worker.

[Cathar1950]

Some where in your theory you forgot your brain.
Your lines between mind, body and soul even in as funtional defintion are blury to at best.
Your ideas of the soul seem superfluous. I prefer the whole being.

Lot's of luck next time you visit a state-licensed psychiatrist, psychologist or are visited by a state social worker.

I can understand the guarded stance on your part. I like talking to them. Has this ever been forced on you?

[Wyvern]

So are deaf-mutes souls in question since they cannot verbalize?

Since Soul is an attribute of the general human condition, it goes without saying that all humans are souls, whether whether deaf, dumb or just plain old ignorant and unbelieving.

How can this be, you yourself said that for someone to have a soul they have to be able to verbally communicate with you. Does this mean that you actually meant that humans alone have souls and that you have nothing to justify this position?

Do parrots have souls since some can talk? Does the fact that some apes have been taught sign language mean they have souls or is it that your inability to understand sign cloud your judgement?

Parrots and apes only mimic human language or behavior and that ability should never be confused with or considered as evidence that they either possess the intellectual faculties of human souls or are capable of becoming human souls through mutation, natural selection or any other "evolutionary" processes, which are only known to exist in the minds of some human souls.

While certainly parrots only say what they are taught this is not true of apes that are able to use sign language. Never did I say that apes have human souls or souls at all for that matter, however what you said is that animals don't have souls because they cannot communicate with you verbally. You followed up by assuming that a human that cannot do this has a soul, even though this violates your own rule. Secondly it has been shown that apes do not merely mimic human sign language so by your rule since they can communicate with us albeit nonverbally they have a soul, granted an ape soul but a soul all the same. It seems you are merely trying to make a false separation between humans and other species based on false suppositions. Heck even the bible says animals will be in heaven with us which means they must have a soul of some sort in order to be there in the first place.

[jcrawford]

Some where in your theory you forgot your brain.

Brains are a given, seeing how neurologists are able to dissect them into hundreds of different pieces in search of some signs of intelligence or other so-called mental functions, before trying to transplant them or setting them on some shelf in jars of formaldehyde.

Your lines between mind, body and soul even in as funtional defintion are blury to at best.

Obviously, definitive lines of demarcation are difficult to draw since there is an overlapping interplay between the various organs and functions of the body, mind and soul. The important thing for my theory to establish at the outset is the hypothetical division of our total being into separate categories in order to retain the use of such words as mind and soul in our everyday vocabularies, since it is essential to differentiate between mental and physical health if such professions as are currently practiced in the mental health fields are to have any realistic or meaningful definitions to begin with.

Your ideas of the soul seem superfluous. I prefer the whole being.

My idea of the soul is that is a constuent part and representative of your whole being, since you cannot be cognizant of your whole being if you deny any aspect of your self; self being that part of your soul which is capable of self-observation, self-consciousness and self-knowledge.

Lot's of luck next time you visit a state-licensed psychiatrist, psychologist or are visited by a state social worker.

I can understand the guarded stance on your part. I like talking to them. Has this ever been forced on you?

State-licensed psychologists and psychiatrists have imposed and forced their views on everyone if only indirectly through the experiences and beliefs of our many friends, neighbors, teachers and other state educators. They function as the new high priests of social disorders.

[jcrawford]

So are deaf-mutes souls in question since they cannot verbalize?

Since Soul is an attribute of the general human condition, it goes without saying that all humans are souls, whether whether deaf, dumb or just plain old ignorant and unbelieving.

How can this be, you yourself said that for someone to have a soul they have to be able to verbally communicate with you.

Quote where I said that and we shall see whether you are either misrepresenting or misinterpreting what I said or not.

Does this mean that you actually meant that humans alone have souls and that you have nothing to justify this position?

No matter what you think I said, in fact I mean that I only know that people have souls and don't know anything about sub-human souls.

Never did I say that apes have human souls or souls at all for that matter,

Neither did I.

however what you said is that animals don't have souls because they cannot communicate with you verbally.

Quote where I said that and we shall see whether you are either misrepresenting or misinterpreting what I said or not.

You followed up by assuming that a human that cannot do this has a soul, even though this violates your own rule.

Quote where I said that "a human that cannot do this has a soul," and we shall see whether you are either misrepresenting or misinterpreting what I said or not.

Secondly it has been shown that apes do not merely mimic human sign language so by your rule since they can communicate with us albeit nonverbally they have a soul, granted an ape soul but a soul all the same. It seems you are merely trying to make a false separation between humans and other species based on false suppositions. Heck even the bible says animals will be in heaven with us which means they must have a soul of some sort in order to be there in the first place.

If you wish to either rhetorically or theoretically establish the fact that members of certain species other than human beings are or have souls, be my guest, since my theory only pertains to the fact and reality of the existence of human souls, and since you seem to be experiencing some difficulty in acknowledging the fact of your own soul, what good will it do my soul if you prove the existence of sub-human ape souls, or of parrots, for that matter?

[Wyvern]

I don't know that sub-human animals do not have souls. I do know that they are incapable of communicating that information to me on a verbal and intellectual level, since they are but dumb animals and cannot speak for themselves as we have been so gifted and blessed.

[Katsuro]

jcrawford wrote:

Quixotic wrote:

Really don't like this theory.

A theory must arrive either
a) After study and data extraction of whatever it is you are theorising about or
b) Before the study, then study it to find out if your theory meets the data, then see a again.

Here you have gone straight to creating a theory and not tested any of it!

Marx, Darwin and Freud did the same and left it to the rest the world to study, test, and demonstrate the truthfulness of their theories.

Two things here:
1) Are you admitting you haven't tested any of your theory? People often seem to be confused about the meaning of the word 'theory' in the scientific context. Contrary to popular belief it DOES NOT mean "s*** I made up", theories have to be based on something you can demonstrate.
2)You cannot make up a "theory" and not bother to back it up with any evidence, instead leaving other people to test it for you! Do you think science works that way? Apart from anything else it's lazy and sloppy. Unless I am mistaken the scientific process is along the liens of - observe, make a hypothesis based on these observations, test the hypothesis. The scientific process I doubt is along the lines of - make something up, get everyone else to do the hard work for you and to do your testing! Besides, Darwin did not leave it to the rest of the world to test and demonstrate the truthfulness of his theories. His theories were based upon observations and were backed up with demonstratable evidence which, over time, other scientists looked at and eventually came to agree on. Also Marx was more of a philosopher. Darwin was a biologist, you cannot compare the two or group them together.

jcrawford wrote:

Quixotic wrote:

Your theory does not make any sense anyway

Neither do the theories of Marx, Darwin and Freud.

Again two things:
1) Are you admitting your theory doesn't make any sense?
2) The theories of Marx, Darwin and Freud don't make any sense?? Huh? Darwin's theories make perfect sense, they were supported with demonstratable evidence which is why they have become accepted by the scientific community. Some of the things Marx said did make sense. You may not like what he had to say, but some of it does make sense. And as for Freud, well I personally think he was plain weird and his theories say more about his own issues than those of the people he studied, but I can't really say they make absolutely no sense at all. Besides, if someone else theories don't make sense it doesn't make it ok for yours not to nor does it make you any more right.

I must agree with Quixotic, your definition of the soul sounds more like a definition of the mind. Some people use the word 'soul' in a sort of metaphorical, poetic sense meaning the same thing as the mind. But you appear to be making a clear distinction between the two, whilst simultaneously making them one and the same.