The Armchair Antichrist

"I’m not making an argument for the existence of a soul."

"Just like your argument that would have merit if it were actually argued, the ideas I posited about God only have merit if he actually exists."

So, I am the one making an argument, but you're not? That's very convenient.

I think I made this very clear. "As far as I am concerned the soul may or may not exist. It is up to those who believe in the concept to provide evidence for it."

And from what you have presented me demonstrates that you are in the position that souls exist.

"What makes you believe that ideas, purposes, and choices are material?"

And then you straw man me again. The last time you did it you reduced the monist position to "everything is just chemical reactions".

"It is not clear that because they differ in substance immaterial and material cannot interact. Please explain this further.

In substance dualism, mind and matter are fundamentally distinct substances.

Matter interacts with other matter and energy in space. The immaterial does not exist in space. So, how could it possibly interact with matter? It might introduce energy into the system. But, that would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

And please stop it with the analogies. You can't equate ideas, purposes, and choices to the mind/soul. They don't exist without a mind. And the mind doesn't exist without a brain. So, the mind is at least reducible to the brain. This is demonstrated by split-brain patients and other instances of brain damage.

Unless you can give me something solid I am not interested in further discussion.

"But, you have not given me one shred of evidence for the existence of the soul"
I'm not making an argument for the existence of a soul. My expressed intent was to critique your arguments, which I have done and continue to do.

"They are ontologically distinct substances...By definition they cannot interact."
It is not clear that because they differ in substance immaterial and material cannot interact. Please explain this further.

"What about ideas, purposes, and choices?
Show me an idea, purpose and choice that did not come from a person with a brain."
I responded to this earlier. I did not merely say "what about ideas, purposes, and choices?" I showed what affect these things had upon material objects. This statement of yours leads me to believe that you think ideas, purposes, and choices are physical and contained within the brain. What makes you believe that ideas, purposes, and choices are material?
I would argue that ideas/concepts are immaterial, metaphysical. If a ball, once created, ceases to obtain within space-time it is non-existent, but an idea, once thought, can exist even without being held consciously or subconsciously in the brain of a person. Beethoven's 5th symphony is an idea dependent upon information; would it cease to exist if everyone who knew its composition suddenly did not know it? Would it no longer have meaning if a score was found though no one could interpret the information on the page? Of course not. Beethoven's 5th is an immaterial idea, not a material object. However, this immaterial idea effects how physical mediums represent it and what physical phenomena is produced upon interpretation. Again, this appears to demonstrate that the immaterial does affect the material. If this is true then one of your problems of the soul is not so problematic at all. If I'm to change my view on this matter I'll need a more convincing (and please please please more detailed) argument.

"It is not logically sound to ask somebody to prove a negative."
Just like your argument that would have merit if it were actually argued, the ideas I posited about God only have merit if he actually exists. Again, mentioning God and positing that he is a mind was simply part of an introductory paragraph. At this time it is neither my intent to attempt to argue for theism nor debate your views on that particular matter.

I'm sorry, I forgot to finish one of my sentences. It should read:
"Thirdly it means that God is non-physical. As far as ramifications go..."

[quote] That’s one big strawman you make here.[/quote]
I made no straw-man. If-then statements only posit something if the first term is true, thereby making the second term true. I don’t know if the first term is true; therefore, I don’t know if the second term is true.
[quote] Also, it is silly to believe that the debate over free will can be resolved with one sentence.[/quote] I said that the case supporting physical causal determinism is difficult to construct and defend. This is not a resolution.

[quote]I would appreciate it if you would look at the problems I have outlined for the soul.[/quote]
I did. I responded to two of your points. I will list your claims and my responses after I address the second part of the last paragraph in your rebuttal.
[quote]They are genuine problems that need to be addressed before you can even begin talking about the concept of the soul.[/quote]
This statement is backward and, oddly enough, you don’t even believe it since you at least try to establish a concept of a soul before you present the problems with the soul. In order for there to be problems with an idea, the idea must already exist. One must have a concept of a soul before one can critique the problems raised by that concept. Unfortunately, you tell me that the soul is non-physical and that this explains nothing. This is problematic for several reasons some of which give rise to some of my objections. How am I to know what view of the soul you are critiquing? What is this soul supposed to do? How can I possibly believe the problems that you claim these things have if I don’t even know what the soul is or does?

[quote]It is logically contradictory to say that something which is immaterial can have any effect on something which is material.[/quote]
I’d like to point out that my response also answers this question of yours:
[quote] I don’t see how that in any way supports the idea of the soul.[/quote]
Response: [quote]Firstly, it is not at all a logical contradiction to say that something immaterial can affect something material...[/quote]
My response implicitly supports the idea of a soul because it demonstrates how the immaterial can have an effect upon the material. This refutes your claim and leads to my second point which is a response to your second claim within the paragraph. The whole part about Aristotle’s 4 causes was the main point of my response.

[quote]Also, any added energy from the soul would violate the first law of thermodynamics.[/quote]
Response: [quote]Secondly, It is not clear in the least that immaterial to material causation violates the 1st LoTD.[/quote]
This response means: How does immaterial-material causation violate the 1st LoTD?

At this time I'll respond to your rebuttal concerning God being a mind because, as I said in my response, that the soul and mind are the same seems to be true, my response hinges upon that assertion and it appears you agree.
[quote]Calling God a mind means nothing.[/quote]
This is really just part of my introductory paragraph but it is an important assertion. I'll address it though I'd like to mainly stay on the task at hand. Calling God a mind means a host of things and has many ramifications. First, it means that God is immaterial. Second, it means that God is intelligent. Third, it means that Firstly, if God is a mind and humans have minds then the two bear some sort of similarity. Secondly, if God is a mind and minds are able to influence the physical world, then God can influence the physical world. Thirdly, if God is a mind then he does not have to be physically experienced. Fourthly, if God is a mind then there is the possibility that other minds can communicate with him. These are only four ramifications of claiming that God is a mind though there are plenty more.

Now, here are some more responses to your original post.
[quote]If the soul is capable of all those things without the body it seems very pointless and redundant to have sensory organs at all.[/quote]
If 2s are actually 3s then 2+2 would equal 6. Well, since no one argues that 2s are 3s so this means nothing. Likewise, if no one claims that the soul is capable of the same physical sense experience as the body then the point you make doesn’t matter. Establishing that the soul is capable of such experiences is crucial to your argument and if it is true then you may have a valid point depending on the argument for soul and body interaction. Unfortunately, that establishment is not in your argument. If indeed you can show this to be true or someone else argues that, then I would enjoy reading or hearing that argument.

[quote] Damage to the brain is physical and should not be able to affect our these mental abilities which reside in our non-physical souls.[/quote]
Why can’t physical things impact the non-physical? You certainly seem to think that it is possible since use as a supporting case the moral wrongness of an act (which is immaterial) relying upon physical actions and states of being. What reason do I have to think that the body and mind don’t affect each other?


Ok, I think that is enough for now. Please let me know if I've not been clear enough.

As far as I am concerned the soul may or may not exist. It is up to those who believe in the concept to provide evidence for it. But, you have not given me one shred of evidence for the existence of the soul.

Why can't the non-physical impact the physical and vice versa?

They are ontologically distinct substances. Matter is bound to the laws of nature. The non-material is described as being non-spatial and has no mass so it is not bound to the laws of nature. By definition they cannot interact.

What about ideas, purposes, and choices?

Show me an idea, purpose and choice that did not come from a person with a brain. The soul is a redundant concept.

What about God?

God also may or may not exist. And again it is up to those who believe in God to present evidence for its existence. It is not logically sound to ask somebody to prove a negative.

Hm. Just a few thoughts on a cursory view.
I find it hard to believe (and indeed it does not at all appear) that you have irrefutably disproved the possibility of the existence of souls. Many mind-body dualists equate the soul to the mind. Many Christian apologists argue that God is a mind. It appears that you find them to be the same since your argument addresses thinking, downward mental causation, and identity all of which are classically attributed to the mind. This is significant because it affects several key concepts in your arguments.

As per your arguments, I have some objections. Firstly, it is not at all a logical contradiction to say that something immaterial can affect something material. For example, if someone makes an object several non-material variables are in play: the concept of that object, the purpose for which it is made, and the choice to make it. More commonly these are referred to as the formal cause, the final cause and the efficient cause. You may recognize these as 3 of Aristotle's 4 causes, the fourth concerning the material out of which the object is made. Certainly you would not claim that ideas, purposes and choices are material though each clearly has an undeniable impact upon the material object. If you go the route of reducing all those things to mere chemical reactions in the brain, well, you'll have a much larger problem because you'll have just agreed to physical causal determinism which is a nasty mountain to climb much less defend. However, if you have some sort of syllogism showing it is logically contradictory or fallacious (formal or material) to agree to immaterial-material causation please do so in a more explicitly manner.
Secondly, It is not clear in the least that immaterial to material causation violates the 1st LoTD. Again, a syllogism or more explicit argument here would be appreciated.

Your thoughts?

"I find it hard to believe (and indeed it does not at all appear) that you have irrefutably disproved the possibility of the existence of souls."

I never said that I irrefutably disproved anything. The soul is just a concept that is highly improbable and redundant. And believing in the existence of souls comes with the obstacles I have outlined.

"Many Christian apologists argue that God is a mind.

Christian apologists say many things. But, they don't really explain anything. Calling God a mind means nothing.

"Certainly you would not claim that ideas, purposes and choices are material though each clearly has an undeniable impact upon the material object."

I don't see how that in any way supports the idea of the soul. You have also failed to make any causal link between an immaterial soul and a material body. For instance, how does physical pain ever reach the soul?

"If you go the route of reducing all those things to mere chemical reactions in the brain, well, you’ll have a much larger problem because you’ll have just agreed to physical causal determinism which is a nasty mountain to climb much less defend."

That's one big strawman you make here. There are problems with both dualism and monism. But, the problems with dualism are so great that it isn't taken seriously anymore (other than people with a religious agenda).

Also, it is silly to believe that the debate over free will can be resolved with one sentence.

"Again, a syllogism or more explicit argument here would be appreciated."

I would appreciate it if you would look at the problems I have outlined for the soul. They are genuine problems that need to be addressed before you can even begin talking about the concept of the soul.

This says it all. Lol.
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs50/f/2009/306/c/e/...

Wow. That's a perfect illustration of that problem.

Hey, just found your blog. This post is one that I take quite some interest in. You've made quite some good points, and I accept the fact that we are controlled by our brains, not our soul.

I was born in a Buddhist/Chinese Superstition community, in an agnostic family. I've heard of this soul/ghost thing from my friends, family, and as an atheist, I try to tell them the problem of the soul. So here's some points I would like to add. :-)

1. Sight
Sight is acheived through the sending of info from the eye's nerve cells to the brain. For this to happen, photons must hit our eyes retina. So here's the problem: We know light can only be reflected from a surface, or created from energy sources. A soul/ghost is not matter, and thus the only possible way is to create light. But then, the ghost would not be eternal, as generating light requires energy!!
(Then why call it a ghost?)

2. The problem of gravity
The theory of relativity states that gravity is a warp of space-time. If something is to appear in the universe, it is subject to gravity. But ghosts can are supposed to float, and this creates a paradox! Ghosts must exist in space-time to affect us, and they are bound to gravity if they do so. So this refutes another characteristic of ghosts.

Hope my points would be considered. :-)

On the topic of ghosts. They must either exist in space-time or be moving thousands of miles per hour to keep up that appearance.

That's also a problem I find with time travel stories. The people always end up back on the same spot on earth. But, they have only moved in time. It is highly likely that the earth is not in the same position in it's orbit, so they should be floating in space.