How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Is the brain the seat of the mind?   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Is the brain the seat of the mind?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


25 posted 05-09-2007 12:39 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LR,

Of course you can have your own opinion.     I think it was your particular negative yet non-explanative reply that Essorant was referring to.  We already know that we don't agree.

quote:
He can appeal to antiquity -- but there is historically as much support for the position that the moon is made of green cheese.  


A philosophical question about soul cannot be discussed in historical categories ... history being a different field altogether.  And yet I believe the most reliable histories support it and do not deny it.  Reading someone like N.T. Wright and others might at least remind you that a history which emphatically insists upon a soul, and eternal life, is not to be ridiculed along with Mother Goose.  


Of course I feel a comparable disbelief about the historical revisionists you perhaps tend to trust, only I wouldn't likewise ridicule, since I think lies are typically strong and convincing, as to counteract the truth which is stronger.


But again, it's no one area of study that by iteself confirms God and soul to me, but the collective power of many areas, history, philosophy, psychology, experience ... to name a few.  


quote:
If he wants to say that 'soul' is to brain as hand is to foot -- then he's making a pretty strong argument that when you die your soul dies too.


So if someone is as mad as fire, then that means pouring water on their head will appease them?  Analogy.  Non-physical (or trans-physical) realities must always be spoken of in this manner.  And if you want to say you don't know what I mean; When's the last time you heard someone say their heart was broken?  We instantly understand the truths behind such sayings, and yet never insist upon exact correspondence.  So, no.  My limited but helpful analogy is no argument for the mortality of soul, anymore than saying someone has a broken heart implies a myocardial infarction.


Stephen        
    
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


26 posted 05-09-2007 06:12 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Hi Rebel!  re:

"Am I not entitled to my opinion Ess?  Everybody gets one but me?"

Don't feel bad.  Apparently, Grim isn't entitled either.  

Best, Jim

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


27 posted 05-09-2007 08:29 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Jim, haven't seen Grim's opinion expressed here, nor his right to do so denied elswhere.

Stephen;

For all your trouble -- you still haven't established any more evidence, or even a cogent syllogism(that logical device used in philosophy Ess), in support of 'soul' than the flying spaghetti monster.

On the other hand, the scientific evidence is rather strong in support of the brain being the seat of the mind.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


28 posted 05-09-2007 10:39 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LR :
quote:
or even a cogent syllogism


Apart from formal syllogisms, my own statements and yours are full of syllogisms.  So I don't understand what you mean by this.  Probably what you really mean is that you don't agree with my premises, and therefore my conclusions are false.  But of course I would say the same about what you're saying.  However I won't accuse you of being non-philosophical in your discussions, or of being illogical.  Logical doesn't necessarily mean true or right, as any detective will tell you.  


quote:
you still haven't established any more ... in support of 'soul' than the flying spaghetti monster.


Wipe that Sauce off of your wings will ya?    

Really to me, a being who is no more than a complex expression of physicality (ego and consciousness being just another quantitative variation), destined to return to the subpersonal from which it came, which is assumed to possess any real insight into the nature of self or reality as a whole, smells of Ragu more than anything I've described.  


I really think that talking ourselves into believing we have no soul, is one way to lose it.  


Stephen    
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


29 posted 05-09-2007 11:31 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LR,

I just had to add that with all this talk of spaghetti and green cheese, you're making me hungry.     

Although I prefer Parmesan.


Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


30 posted 05-10-2007 01:04 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, however imaginitive, still exists.  Just like a warped mirror's warped reflection (warped on purpose or not) of an object or objects that may look much different from the reflection.  The mirror, the reflection, and the objects all exist, but perhaps sometimes the distinction between objects and reflections becomes confused, ignored, or forgotten over time. Even after the object is no longer in front of the "mirror", we can still retain the reflection of something/things in an artistic shape or represention, and therein the shape will be warped as much as as the mirror warped it.  And, to help try to confuse us even more the artistic representation can then be an object too, whence more reflections and artistic shapes may be inspired and deviate from the original object.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


31 posted 05-10-2007 02:34 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster, however imaginitive, still exists.


But that sense of "existence" (imaginitive fiction) is not what we are speaking of.  


Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


32 posted 05-10-2007 02:48 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I also meant representation in general, Stephanos.  For example, the representation or portrayal of God in the bible, even with a manner of imaginitiveness as well, may be "fiction" but it also has truth.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


33 posted 05-10-2007 03:33 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Perhaps, but that degree of "truth" is not guaranteed in all instances of imagination.  In what sense does the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" convey truth or reality?  


What Reb meant is, that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" does not exist as a real personage.  I understood exactly what he meant.  If I were to accept only your lowest definition of reality, as it applies to the soul or even to God, it would be a lesser form of reality than the one I am describing.


Stephen
    
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


34 posted 05-10-2007 04:02 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Alright, pretend you are at the carnival and there is a scientifically designed mirror that reflects your face in such a way that it looks like spaghetti with eyes hovering in the mirror.  You laugh and leave without imagining it will go any further.  But the mirror also recorded that.  A few months later a picture of you as you showed up in the mirror is published as the "flying spaghetti monster"! but you don't come across that picture for five years, so when you do you don't remember that is scientifically altered reflection of yourself, nor remember going to the carnival.  Still say the "flying spaghetti monster" doesn't reflect a true personage?  

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


35 posted 05-10-2007 04:14 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

I really think that talking ourselves into believing we have no soul, is one way to lose it.  



I didn't say that.  I said I'm totally open to the possibility.  

quote:

What Reb meant is, that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" does not exist as a real personage.  I understood exactly what he meant.  



What I really mean is not that the Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist -- but that you haven't made your case -- or that your case is currently at least as provable (or not) as that in favor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

quote:

Apart from formal syllogisms, my own statements and yours are full of syllogisms.  So I don't understand what you mean by this.  Probably what you really mean is that you don't agree with my premises, and therefore my conclusions are false.



Your premise Stephen, is an appeal to antiquity --

quote:

If you look at it from a strictly human perspective, no one no one can know either positively or negatively.  If you are willing to accept certain reports of history as true, and also divine testimony, and also respect the granted insight of the majority of our race (who have tenaciously believed in some kind of 'soul') then I think you might be able to get beyond the agnosticism, or the more faith-like claim of mechanics = you.



If I accept what you say is true then I will believe it is true -- is not a syllogism at all -- but merely circular reasoning -- and -- tatamount to saying 'because I say so (because they said so)'.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


36 posted 05-10-2007 04:33 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Local Rebel,

I am not sure what claim about the soul you are questioning.  Nor what kind of proof you are expecting.  

Can you explain the context of your doubts/questions a bit clearlier?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


37 posted 05-10-2007 04:48 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

By the way, I think what one says is (part of the) evidence as well.    

If it weren't, why would anyone need to testify at court?

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


38 posted 05-10-2007 06:32 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
By the way, I think what one says is (part of the) evidence as well.    

If it weren't, why would anyone need to testify at court?


What you say can indeed be used as evidence but not simply anything you say, for instance if I saw someone stealing a purse my testimony could be used as evidence. However if I simply believed that the person had stolen a purse my testimony would be inadmissible.

Saying that you believe the spaghetti monster exists is not evidence that it does exist in the same way that saying you believe that the soul exists is not evidence.

So does either exist?

Courts or more specifically juries are governed by a rule called reasonable doubt, any judgement they reach does not need to be the truth but as close a approximation as possible - or beyond reasonable doubt based upon the body of evidence. This rule of reasonable doubt isn't restricted to the courtroom, people weigh evidence about almost everything and come to conclusions that are as close an approximation to the truth (or beyond a reasonable doubt) as they can all the time. LR believes that the evidence in both cases allows room to doubt that either the soul or the spaghetti monster exists but is open to any evidence to the contrary and I tend to agree with his position.

Is the brain the seat of the mind?

Given the evidence I'd say it was beyond a reasonable doubt
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


39 posted 05-10-2007 08:37 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Let us address what we both at least acknowledge: the word.  And some equivelants in other languages.

Soul
Animus
Psyche

The evidence of the word itself only betokens existence.

We already have the word nothing for "nothing", why would we use the word soul to refer to "nothing" too, and a word that involves much sentimental importance to people?  Why would many people find much importance in this word, if it actually just referred to "something" that doesn't exist?

They wouldn't.  The word beyond a reasonable doubt refers to something that exists.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


40 posted 05-10-2007 09:07 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant:
quote:
... A few months later a picture of you as you showed up in the mirror is published as the "flying spaghetti monster"! but you don't come across that picture for five years, so when you do you don't remember that is scientifically altered reflection of yourself, nor remember going to the carnival.  Still say the "flying spaghetti monster" doesn't reflect a true personage?


As a matter of fact, I do.  Let me explain.

With your scenario, it is the degree that the image doesn't reflect me, that it is the Italian ghoul.  Remember that you said it was a "scientifically designed" mirror.  That means that the characteristics of the reflection are artificial, to the extreme point of losing my identity entirely.  The monster still doesn't exist beyond someone's fancy.


Or if you want to say that the FSM exists only in the sense that all of its separate components exist ... like pasta, and tomatoes, and monstrous animals or people, then I'll agree with you.  But again that is a different kind of "reality" than what I have been speaking of.  


LR:
quote:
didn't say that.  I said I'm totally open to the possibility.
  

In the same way as you are open to an airborne Pasta dish with eyes?  You did seem to say that, in not so many words.

  
quote:
What I really mean is not that the Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist -- but that you haven't made your case -- or that your case is currently at least as provable (or not) as that in favor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Don't play coy.  I know an attempt at reductio ad absurdum when I see it.  Of course you are implying that this chimera doesn't exist.  Tacking on a concession about the impossibility of proving an impossibility doesn't change that.    

quote:
Your premise Stephen, is an appeal to antiquity


As is, I suppose, any appeal to history, experience, testimony, or reportage of any kind.  


quote:
If I accept what you say is true then I will believe it is true -- is not a syllogism at all -- but merely circular reasoning -- and -- tatamount to saying 'because I say so (because they said so)'.


Reb, you gotta trust something, someone, sometime.  I'm certainly not suggesting that you take something totally on someone else's authoriity.  But I didn't present only the testimony of others as a clue, but other clues as well.  You have merely taken one statement out of the whole.  I've never been one to blindly accept authority without a thought process.  

But everyone, including you, has presuppositions.  And anyone may point out the circular nature inherent in them.  Some circles are better than others.  Chesterton once said that a bullet is quite round as the world, but it isn't the world.


Stephen.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


41 posted 05-10-2007 09:09 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Fairys, leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, boogey-men, werewolfs, vampires, Martians, Athena, Zeus, Hades, Excalibur, Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock,  and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all words that represent 'something'.  

Some words represent real things, some words represent Fictional things.  

But I'll give you credit Ess for approaching a syllogism in your last post -- although you commit an all-too common error:

quote:

People often make mistakes when reasoning syllogistically.

For instance, given the following parameters: some A are B, some B are C, people tend to come to a definitive conclusion that therefore some A are C. However, this does not follow (for instance, while some cats (A) are black (B), and some black things (B) are televisions (C), it is false that some cats (A) are televisions (C)). This is because first, the mood of the syllogism invoked is illicit (III), and second, the supposition of the middle term is variable between that of the middle term in the major premise, and that of the middle term in the minor premise (not all "some" cats are by necessity of logic the same "some black things").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Everyday_syllogistic_mistakes



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


42 posted 05-10-2007 09:12 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

To all,

I am about to go to the other side of the world (literally) to adopt another living soul into our family.  So I may not have time or opportunity to continue this discussion until some weeks later.  Though I may try, if I get a chance.  I am without a laptop.  And I don't know whether or not internet cafe's will be readily available where I'm going.


God bless you all,

your friend,

Stephen.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


43 posted 05-10-2007 09:15 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Sorry Stephen --Until I can get a neurologist to fix my brain I'm only good for about 15 minutes in front of the computer any more -- I'll have to get back to you later.

Ah well -- we posted simultaneously --

Bonvoyage -- and best of luck friend.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


44 posted 05-10-2007 10:11 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Congragulations Stephanos.  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


45 posted 05-11-2007 12:41 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant


With your scenario, it is the degree that the image doesn't reflect me, that it is the Italian ghoul.  Remember that you said it was a "scientifically designed" mirror.  That means that the characteristics of the reflection are artificial, to the extreme point of losing my identity entirely.  The monster still doesn't exist beyond someone's fancy.


But if it were a "flying spaghetti monster" mask instead, it wouldn't "reflect" you in that sense either.  Would you suggest that it were no longer Stephanos because the mask looks like a "Flying Spaghetti Monster"?          


Or if you want to say that the FSM exists only in the sense that all of its separate components exist ... like pasta, and tomatoes, and monstrous animals or people, then I'll agree with you.  But again that is a different kind of "reality" than what I have been speaking of.


All I am saying is that as imaginary it exists just as much as something that is not imaginary.

The distinction is the presence of imaginary aspects instead of the absence of existance.  That is an important distinction.  

Local Rebel,



Fairys, leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, boogey-men, werewolfs, vampires, Martians, Athena, Zeus, Hades, Excalibur, Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock,  and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all words that represent 'something'



That's all I was trying to say.  
They refer to something and something is existant.

Some words represent real things, some words represent Fictional things.


I would change that to:

"Some words refer to plain nature, some words refer to nature enhanced with art"

Kitherion
Member
since 08-01-2006
Posts 179
Johannesburg


46 posted 05-15-2007 12:12 AM       View Profile for Kitherion   Email Kitherion   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Kitherion

The flying spagetti monster... ... ... the only way to approach that, is to deny it's non-existance by asking whether or not you are able to disprove it... Jedi Knoghts anyone... (The force is strong in me... ... ...)

Love Me.

"Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..."

Kitherion will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Is the brain the seat of the mind?   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors