Does the Soul Exist?

[Dancing David]

Thank you for your answer.

Is the mind a real thing, subject, or entity with a real existence distinguishable from the physical brain?

No one has shown the existence of a mind absent a brain

Or is the mind purely a process of the brain, in particular the process of the passing of electrons, like the process of walking or the process of electrons passing through a wire?

If the mind is a real subject, then I tend to think that it must not be purely a process, since a subject performs a process, and thus is not the same as a process.

I regret to say that is a fallacy of construction

I sense that my mind has a real existence as a subject, and is not the same thing as my brain. eg. If I died, my brain would still be around, but my mind would not be, unless there were an "afterlife" state.

Huh

 

[rakovsky]

That does not follow... You claim that the mind isn't a process because after your mind is gone, your brain will still be there.
There's nothing in that assertion that is incongruous with the mind being something the brain does, and there's nothing there that says the mind must be something else...

That's like saying after you become paraplegic, your legs are still there, so 'walking' must be some mysterious independent entity that does not depend on legs.

Thanks for writing back, Porpoise.

In my conscious state, it appears to me that my mind, which performs thinking and recognizes that it is thinking, and is a real subject.

If my brain dies, I still have my physical brain, but I don't have a working mind anymore and am not thinking, and so the remaining physical brain and the mind and its processes are distinguishable. Like you said, if my legs become paralyzed (eg. a parapalegic), I still have the physical legs, but I don't have the walking.

The difference in the two situations is that I sense that I have a physical brain and a mind that both work together to process thinking and are distinguished by the process of death, whereas I sense only my legs when it comes to walking.

Unlike the processes of walking and thinking, I sense that my mind is the subject that performs the actions with the help of the brain. Thus the physical subject brain, the subject mind, and their tasks of thinking are each distinguishable from each other.

 

[MikeG]

.......If my brain dies, I still have my physical brain........

No you don't. When one's brain dies there is no such thing as "I". Everything you say from there on is, therefore, based on a fallacy, and can be dismissed.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Thanks for writing back, Porpoise.

In my conscious state, it appears to me that my mind, which performs thinking and recognizes that it is thinking, and is a real subject.

If my brain dies, I still have my physical brain, but I don't have a working mind anymore and am not thinking, and so the remaining physical brain and the mind and its processes are distinguishable. Like you said, if my legs become paralyzed (eg. a parapalegic), I still have the physical legs, but I don't have the walking.

The difference in the two situations is that I sense that I have a physical brain and a mind that both work together to process thinking and are distinguished by the process of death, whereas I sense only my legs when it comes to walking.

Unlike the processes of walking and thinking, I sense that my mind is the subject that performs the actions with the help of the brain. Thus the physical subject brain, the subject mind, and their tasks of thinking are each distinguishable from each other.

I only ever sense my mind... I never sense my actual physical brain.

I agree that the mind is not the brain, but I do think the mind emerges from the functioning of the brain.

What is the mind according to you? And what makes you say it's independent from the brain in more than just a conceptual way?

 

[aleCcowaN]

I feel it!

The soul exists

because

death can't

be real,

and be

the end of me

So many crap during so many centuries just to hide that metaphysical dead end.

 

[rakovsky]

No you don't. When one's brain dies there is no such thing as "I". Everything you say from there on is, therefore, based on a fallacy, and can be dismissed.

This suggests to me that the soul, mind, or I on one hand, and the brain on the other, are distinguishable, because the brain continues to exist, but the i does not. Thus I am not the same thing as my brain or my body.

 

[MikeG]

This suggests to me that the soul, mind, or I on one hand, and the brain on the other, are distinguishable, because the brain continues to exist, but the i does not. Thus I am not the same thing as my brain or my body.

OK, we're getting there. This is almost right. "I" is a function of our central nervous system. That function ceases on the death of the body (and of course the body includes the brain). It really is an awful lot simpler than you are trying to make it. You continue to contort your thinking, and your (and our) words, to fit your predetermined outcome.

 

[Pixel42]

This suggests to me that the soul, mind, or I on one hand, and the brain on the other, are distinguishable, because the brain continues to exist, but the i does not. Thus I am not the same thing as my brain or my body.

Yes, in the same way that "going at 60 mph" is not the same thing as a vehicle or its engine. The vehicle and engine will continue to exist when they are stationary and the "going at 60mph" has ceased. Just remember that "going at 60 mph" still requires the existence of a vehicle, even if the existence of a vehicle does not always produce an instance of "going at 60 mph".

 

[aleCcowaN]

... because the brain continues to exist...

what is the name of this fallacy? argumentum ad infantilism?

for the sake of your false, self-pampering, argument you have mixed-up the conservation of a meaty mass apt to make ravioli ripieno, full of omega-3, with histological identity

I concede you there's no difference between a living brain and a dead brain when it comes to develop the options in this thread's poll.

Grow up, girl! You'll die!

 

[Kid Eager]

This suggests to me that the soul, mind, or I on one hand, and the brain on the other, are distinguishable, because the brain continues to exist, but the i does not. Thus I am not the same thing as my brain or my body.

I'm convinced - SUGGESTION is the gold standard of scientific examination, right up there with Youtube as a peer review medium, and googling as a research method.

Your "Thus" is a conclusion scrambling in search of a premise that it will never find, on account of a missing roadmap between the two.

 

[kellyb]

Unlike the processes of walking and thinking, I sense that my mind is the subject that performs the actions with the help of the brain. with the help of the brain.

It seems like that, but I think it's more likely that the brain's performance is the mind/consciousness.

This suggests to me that the soul, mind, or I on one hand, and the brain on the other, are distinguishable, because the brain continues to exist, but the i does not. Thus I am not the same thing as my brain or my body.

The brain thinks. We experience this process of thinking as a mind/consciousness/self.

The brain and the mind are not exactly the same thing, I agree. I don't consider my consciousness a "soul", tho.

 

[kellyb]

This Me or Self then would have to be some nonphysical entity.

Why should our minds be classified as entities at all? Is a functioning operating system on a computer an entity, per say?

 

[Loss Leader]

If my brain dies, I still have my physical brain, but I don't have a working mind anymore and am not thinking, and so the remaining physical brain and the mind and its processes are distinguishable.

Aside from your mistakes in logic, you realize that your description of the brain isn't factually true, right?

Starting at the moment of your death, blood begins to pool in the direction of gravity. This causes capillaries to burst open, destroying the tissue around them.

For that matter, after just a few minutes without oxygen, individual cells lose the ability to process sugar. Without fuel, the cells die. Neurons tend to die first, as they're the greediest for oxygen. Within days, the proteins within your cells have degraded to the point where they couldn't perform their functions even if they were in living cells.

So, after death, you don't have a brain anymore. You have a couple pound lump in the shape of a brain. You have a 1:1 scale model of a brain. But it's no more a brain than the Atlantis is a space shuttle. It will not and cannot fly again. It's just a really detailed model of what a space shuttle would look like.

 

[rakovsky]

Aside from your mistakes in logic, you realize that your description of the brain isn't factually true, right?

Starting at the moment of your death, blood begins to pool in the direction of gravity. This causes capillaries to burst open, destroying the tissue around them.

For that matter, after just a few minutes without oxygen, individual cells lose the ability to process sugar. Without fuel, the cells die. Neurons tend to die first, as they're the greediest for oxygen. Within days, the proteins within your cells have degraded to the point where they couldn't perform their functions even if they were in living cells.

So, after death, you don't have a brain anymore. You have a couple pound lump in the shape of a brain. You have a 1:1 scale model of a brain. But it's no more a brain than the Atlantis is a space shuttle. It will not and cannot fly again. It's just a really detailed model of what a space shuttle would look like.

Loss Leader,
In the model where my mind is my thoughts and purely a function of my brain, then "I" and my mind only exist so long as the brain functions. If the physical brain exists and is able to function, but for some reason is not functioning, then under this model, I and my mind do not exist at that point. As a result, "I" and my mind are still distinguishable from my physical brain itself within this system and its definitions. In the absence of life after death or thinking outside of my physical brain functions, I would not exist when my body dies or they otherwise cease. Yet my physical, functionable brain exists even at the moment when it is not functioning to produce my collection of thoughts.

At the same time, my experience and sense of reality is that "I" have a real existence, as does my mind that views the world in its conscious state. I am a subject, my thinking is a process, and I and my mind are performing the process of thinking. As a result, I and my mind are both distinguishable from my physical brain and from the process of thinking.

 

[rakovsky]

Why should our minds be classified as entities at all? Is a functioning operating system on a computer an entity, per say?

Kelly,
I sense that I have a real existence, which makes me a real being, and I also perform tasks, which makes me a subject.

As I understand it, a computer program is in reality like a formula in a calculator, a set of channels etched into a computer hard drive. A person using the calculator presses buttons that send electric signals along the channels in order to process the equation. The electric signals, hard drive, channels and calculator have a real existence as real objects, but the math equation is not a real object.

My experience of reality is that I have a real existence as a real being, unlike a math equation or calculator formula. This distinction is interesting for me to consider.

 

[aleCcowaN]

As a result, "I" and my mind are still distinguishable from my physical brain itself within this system and its definitions.

Completely wrong by your own reasoning. How ridiculous!

You won't stop trying to twist any conclusion into your wished outcome, will you?

 

[MikeG]

Loss Leader,
In the model where my mind is my thoughts and purely a function of my brain, then "I" and my mind only exist so long as the brain functions. If the physical brain exists and is able to function, but for some reason is not functioning, then under this model, I and my mind do not exist at that point. As a result, "I" and my mind are still distinguishable from my physical brain itself within this system and its definitions. In the absence of life after death or thinking outside of my physical brain functions, I would not exist when my body dies or they otherwise cease. Yet my physical, functionable brain exists even at the moment when it is not functioning to produce my collection of thoughts.

At the same time, my experience and sense of reality is that "I" have a real existence, as does my mind that views the world in its conscious state. I am a subject, my thinking is a process, and I and my mind are performing the process of thinking. As a result, I and my mind are both distinguishable from my physical brain and from the process of thinking.

And? This is so banal as to prompt comparisons with a kindergarten.

"I" and "my mind" are functions of my brain. When my brain dies, it is no longer able to perform the function of creating a sense of "I", nor thinking (thus the mind no longer exists). Brain, I, and mind die together (although brain damage can cause "I" and "mind" to die before the brain).

That's it. End of story. You cannot use logic and word-play to prove the existence of something you want to exist, however badly you want it to exist. You have deluded yourself, but you can't delude the rest of us.

 

[aleCcowaN]

That's it. End of story. You cannot use logic and word-play to prove the existence of something you want to exist, however badly you want it to exist. You have deluded yourself, but you can't delude the rest of us.

Still Jabba2 was born. I'll wait to see who are the accomplices of this travesty.

 

[kellyb]

Kelly,
I sense that I have a real existence, which makes me a real being, and I also perform tasks, which makes me a subject.

...

My experience of reality is that I have a real existence as a real being, unlike a math equation or calculator formula. This distinction is interesting for me to consider.

"You" (the consciousness + the brain/body) are an entity. The mind/consciousness alone is not, necessarily.

 

[Loss Leader]

In the model where my mind is my thoughts and purely a function of my brain, then "I" and my mind only exist so long as the brain functions. If the physical brain exists and is able to function, but for some reason is not functioning, then under this model, I and my mind do not exist at that point.

Sure.

As a result, "I" and my mind are still distinguishable from my physical brain itself within this system and its definitions.

No. I mean, just no. This sentence is literally the opposite of what you just typed. It doesn't follow logically. In fact, your first paragraph states that the mind and the brain are the same thing. One cannot exist under this model. That's not my opinion, it's what you just wrote.

If you want to believe there's a difference between the mind and a functioning neurosystem, go right ahead. But please don't pretend that your position is in any way supported by logic.