NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I'm doing the IB program at my high school, and I've decided to do a Philosophy Extended Essay. For those not in the know, it means that I'm doing a 3000+ word essay on a particular subject. I've chosen philosophy, and I'm doing it in Metaphysics, specifically on the nature of the soul. What I've done here so far is my outline, and I need people to offer me me any feedback on it.

By the way, I am supposed to propose my own ideas, so no criticism about how far-fetched my ideas are.

Just to be clear, I'm not asking anyone to do my work for me, I just want people to help me fine-tune it.

This is just an outline, so there's not a lot of definiton of sources. I've read them, so I'll just write 'X definiton of soul' or something, and I assume you know a bit about them.

If it's not that professional for those expert philosophers... Look, I'm just a stupid teenager, cut me some slack.

I have a feeling someone's already said this about the soul, but whatever.

Ok here it is:

Question: What is the Soul?

Introduction:
• Almost everyone believes they have a soul.
• Dictionary Definition of Soul
• Platonic Definition
• Buddhist Definition
• Arguments against essence/soul (Freud, Hume, etc.)

• Argument: There is no such thing as a soul.
• Counter: What causes us to be alive? Neither consciousness nor the personality is essential, and these are what make us animate sentient beings alongside the soul. If both are non-essential, what is the essence that holds us sentient creatures?
• Argument: Essence cannot be studied, and is only speculation. Therefore, there is no proof to prove it true.
• Counter: The departure of our soul occurs when we are dead or unable to access our conscious mind, making us inanimate. Therefore, our inanimate state can be compared to our animated state, and with empirical evidence of the two comparisons, rationally, we can deduce that there must be a principle of animation. The soul is the reason for this, and it can be studied, not directly, but through its effects.
• Counter: Our consciousness can be proven (Cogito Ergo Sum: I think therefore I am), and our soul is connected to consciousness. Therefore, because the soul represents the independent side of the human essence, which through experiment can be proven true, as opposed to consciousness as the reactive side which receives the information but does not act independently.

First Paragraph:
• Soul is not personality/character/ego.
• It cannot be because character changes.
• Soul is essential, therefore, it cannot change.

Second Paragraph:
• Soul is not consciousness.
• One can be conscious, but unaware and unresponsive (vegetative state).
• Our conscious mind can be manipulated or tricked. Therefore, it is inconstant and not essential, and not a soul.
• Therefore, it cannot be soul.

Third Paragraph:
• Soul is not energy.
• Energy is not able to direct or manifest itself independently, but creatures with souls can.
• Therefore, soul is not energy.
:

Fourth Paragraph (Main argument):
• The Soul is Will.
• Any creature that the ability to direct itself independently in either action or thought has a soul.
• Humans can be proven to have souls because they can do both.
• Argument: Our actions are just our mimicry of others.
• Counter: At some point, there must have been independent thought for mimicry to occur.
• Counter: If this was true, our knowledge level would not advance. This is untrue because our knowledge of the material world has increased significantly.
• Argument: If our soul is our ability to think or act independently, many people lose this ability when their consciousness is affected, and therefore soul is not will, or essential.
• Counter: If our consciousness is tricked or manipulated, we act independently with the information presented to us by our consciousness. It is only by freeing consciousness can we achieve independent thinking with true information.
• Some animals have souls because they can formulate independent/ non-instinctual thinking.
• Argument: Animals react to external phenomena.
• Counter: The case of Coco the Gorilla, studies of dolphins' improvisation, and the crow's ability to use tools in unnatural situations.

Conclusion:
• The soul is independent of the self, consciousness and is not energy.
• Soul is Will.
• Humans and Some animals have souls.
• All people have souls, but do not use their souls abilities correct because their consciousness is blocked from true reality.
• The Soul, Consciousness and Personality make up the makeup of a person, but the only essential part of the person is the Soul and Consciousness.
• Therefore, none of us truly have true Self, as all we are beings that interpret and understand information, as the only the only thing that makes us unique, our personality, is unessential and ephemeral.
• We are all the same in the end, and our purpose is to gather as much knowledge as possible, as this is our only consistent aspect of our makeup.

Good rough draft outline.

Thanks, positive feedback is most welcome!:D

Neglecting my thoughts on the topic, its a decent outline. My only qualm so far is that the setup for your introduction is a little cliché.

Very comprehensive and detailed outline, you look like you know what you're talking about. Best of luck with this work!

But! All the things you're talking about are nonsense in my eyes. I don't know why the hell do philosophers put so much goddamned emphasis on the soul. And I am studying philosophy!

But of course, we can agree to disagree! :D Seriously, this outline has the promise of a good paper!

Neglecting my thoughts on the topic, its a decent outline. My only qualm so far is that the setup for your introduction is a little cliché.

Are one of those people who even deny the existence of a soul? Aww, come on, you know you got one... :)

Seriously though, I just made this all up today, so I wasn't expecting it to be perfect... I'll probably be able to improve on that intro, though, hopefully.

Thanks for that. :)

Very comprehensive and detailed outline, you look like you know what you're talking about. Best of luck with this work!

But! All the things you're talking about are nonsense in my eyes. I don't know why the hell do philosophers put so much goddamned emphasis on the soul. And I am studying philosophy!

But of course, we can agree to disagree! :D Seriously, this outline has the promise of a good paper!

Thank you, I've always been interested in this kind of stuff, so I've collected a fair amount of information on it.

I don't know why Philosophers talk about things average people don't normally talk about... I guess someone got so bored somewhere along the line, made something really random up, got in an arguement with someone and it's been going on ever since. :D

Honestly, though, I think its because people are just curious about the true nature of life, and these kinds of questions are very important to that nature.

No one else wants to see my outline... Oh well, I'm sad now. So I'll just bump this thread again.

Are one of those people who even deny the existence of a soul? Aww, come on, you know you got one... :)

Seriously though, I just made this all up today, so I wasn't expecting it to be perfect... I'll probably be able to improve on that intro, though, hopefully.

Thanks for that. :)

My view of the soul is so complex that NSG cannot contain it.

My only issue with your intro is because as a kid, at school we had to go to a biweekly chapel service, and a lot of the times the homily began like "Webster's dictionary defines faith/courage/friendshp as..."

Your logical syllogisms don't follow. If we use your argument/counter as a base for your premises and conclusions...then we can detect a number of logical fallacies. Basically I am drawing from your argument/counter argument section what I gather to be the base of your premises and conclusions, which in a stretched way may be logically sound but they are not logically valid.

Well, unfortunaly I cant help you, because my convictions tell me that there is no such thing as a soul.

Now, one thing you can do is to get a lot of diferent opinions about the soul from diferent religions and philosophies and try to find the paterns. When you find the paterns, you may try to find the reasons for that and also try to find your explanation to that.

If I was doing it, I would get all these diferent opinions, find the paterns and similarities, and try to explain them using psychology, philosophy and other sciences.

My view of the soul is so complex that NSG cannot contain it.

My only issue with your intro is because as a kid, at school we had to go to a biweekly chapel service, and a lot of the times the homily began like "Webster's dictionary defines faith/courage/friendshp as..."

Oh, I see. I didn't actually want to put that, but the IB requires I define everything I put down. I felt it was good way of getting a nuetral idea of the soul out there.

I'm not seeing a coherent argument in your second and third paragraphs.

Guys...I thought this might be useful to take into consideration when discussing the soul.

http://www.tutor2u.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19691

We debate alot of stuff on there.

Peace

Your logical syllogisms don't follow. If we use your argument/counter as a base for your premises and conclusions...then we can detect a number of logical fallacies. Basically I am drawing from your argument/counter argument section what I gather to be the base of your premises and conclusions, which in a stretched way may be logically sound but they are not logically valid.

Could you be specific please? Honestly, I'd really like to know where.

It looks good to me, but I can't help but wonder why the soul being essential would prevent it from changing.
Also, Decartes' argument for existence doesn't really hold that well.

Other than that, it looks extremely good thus far. Good luck with it.

I'm not seeing a coherent argument in your second and third paragraphs.

Which points exactly?

The soul is the functions of the brain we don't know about yet.

Could you be specific please? Honestly, I'd really like to know where.

Well I am a Phil student in college so I know what I know but it's harder for me to explain, I am trying to find a nice clear site that explains logical argumentation for you.

It looks good to me, but I can't help but wonder why the soul being essential would prevent it from changing.
Also, Decartes' argument for existence doesn't really hold that well.

Other than that, it looks extremely good thus far. Good luck with it.

Well, simply put, essence never changes. It remains the same for all time for everyone.

Really? I find Descartes statement is very sound, as it really is the only thing we can prove to ourselves, unless you want to go into that whole 'is world even real?' kind of thing. That's possible, but you can't prove it.

Thanks :)

The soul is the functions of the brain we don't know about yet.

Possibly. But we don't have proof yet, so this is the best idea I've come up with using our current knowledge.

I did the IB at college too. I wish I'd been more adventurous with my extended essay, so I respect your effort to be original.


Fourth Paragraph (Main argument):
• The Soul is Will.
• Any creature that the ability to direct itself independently in either action or thought has a soul.
• Humans can be proven to have souls because they can do both.
• Argument: Our actions are just our mimicry of others.
• Counter: At some point, there must have been independent thought for mimicry to occur.
• Counter: If this was true, our knowledge level would not advance. This is untrue because our knowledge of the material world has increased significantly.
• Argument: If our soul is our ability to think or act independently, many people lose this ability when their consciousness is affected, and therefore soul is not will, or essential.
• Counter: If our consciousness is tricked or manipulated, we act independently with the information presented to us by our consciousness. It is only by freeing consciousness can we achieve independent thinking with true information.
• Some animals have souls because they can formulate independent/ non-instinctual thinking.
• Argument: Animals react to external phenomena.
• Counter: The case of Coco the Gorilla, studies of dolphins' improvisation, and the crow's ability to use tools in unnatural situations.


I disagree with you on many things you've said, but that's ok. I don't know if you want to argue about them on here?

I'm not sure about giving lots of different definitions at the start - I would prefer to read your definition, or the characteristics that you're trying to capture and explain, followed by a little historical summary.

Your conclusions strike me as a little bit too axiomatic (although I can imagine you might support them with more detail in the full version). The very last ones in particular seem to come from nowhere, and sound rash for a philosophical essay.

Well I am a Phil student in college so I know what I know but it's harder for me to explain, I am trying to find a nice clear site that explains logical argumentation for you.

Yeah, I'm not in college, so you're lightyears ahead of me...

Oh, thanks a lot! I'm probably going to need some Logic for a logical argument anyway:D Though I thought I was being pretty logical, but I guess not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
This site sucks but I glanced at it and this small article seems to be decent, I wish I could log you into my account at the college cuzz we have programs explaining this kinda thing :headbang:

By the way, I am supposed to propose my own ideas, so no criticism about how far-fetched my ideas are.
Drat. :p

From the perspective of a lay-philosopher, I feel that you need to make explicit the separation between Mind and Will in order for your suppositions to follow through. Is Will more than just decision making? If not, what defines Mind outside of its ability to make decisions that merits such separation of concepts?

Thank you, I've always been interested in this kind of stuff, so I've collected a fair amount of information on it.

I don't know why Philosophers talk about things average people don't normally talk about... I guess someone got so bored somewhere along the line, made something really random up, got in an arguement with someone and it's been going on ever since. :D

Honestly, though, I think its because people are just curious about the true nature of life, and these kinds of questions are very important to that nature.

Well yeah, I pretty much agree with you on the origin of philosophy XD And well, I *do* understand why they give that much importance to the soul, it's just that I would never say that the soul exists... I'd never say that it doesn't, either. In my eyes, metaphysics are just a big swollen case of castles in the clouds. But hey, they're incredibly interesting and fun castles in the clouds! :D

I just don't like the way most of philosophers talk like they've found some ultimate truth... every third philosophers claims he's going to end philosophy, and they all thoroughly FAIL AT IT. So when I read about god, the soul, transcendence or whatever other grand-sounding concept in a "factual" way, I promptly go "Well, yeah, that's like, your opinion, dude"

Here's a cool site, you can submit your arguments and phil profs will tell you if they are good or not.

http://www.univnorthco.edu/philosophy/clinic.html

I did the IB at college too. I wish I'd been more adventurous with my extended essay, so I respect your effort to be original.



I disagree with you on many things you've said, but that's ok. I don't know if you want to argue about them on here?

I'm not sure about giving lots of different definitions at the start - I would prefer to read your definition, or the characteristics that you're trying to capture and explain, followed by a little historical summary.

Your conclusions strike me as a little bit too axiomatic (although I can imagine you might support them with more detail in the full version). The very last ones in particular seem to come from nowhere, and sound rash for a philosophical essay.

Yes, please, give all and any counter arguements!

Yeah, the IB wants some basis of other theories first as well... I can't just go and make up stuff without acknowledging other ideas. They're also useful to disprove, as Platonic Soul was connected consciousness, which is one of the things I try and disprove.

Which points in the last one do you have problems with?

Well, simply put, essence never changes. It remains the same for all time for everyone.

Really? I find Descartes statement is very sound, as it really is the only thing we can prove to ourselves, unless you want to go into that whole 'is world even real?' kind of thing. That's possible, but you can't prove it.

Thanks :)

Why should the essence not change, though? All you've really said is that the soul doesn't change because the soul is essence and essence doesn't change.
I think that counts as circular reasoning.

I adore going into the whole 'Is the world even real?' thing. :D
Even though it can't be proven, the opposite cannot be proven either. Hence we are unsure which theory to support.

Here is a pretty decent site that helps you form arguments:

http://www.humboldt.edu/~act/HTML/index.html

I adore going into the whole 'Is the world even real?' thing. :D
Even though it can't be proven, the opposite cannot be proven either. Hence we are unsure which theory to support.
Isn't it generally held that "reality" is a subjective conceptual model constructed by each individual to act as a map between our perceptions and our conceptions?

Drat. :p

From the perspective of a lay-philosopher, I feel that you need to make explicit the separation between Mind and Will in order for your suppositions to follow through. Is Will more than just decision making? If not, what defines Mind outside of its ability to make decisions that merits such separation of concepts?

Well, the mind is consciousness to me. It receives information and understands ideas, but Will is responsible for reacting to those ideas and making independent decisions. Basically, the Will is what animates us.

Which points exactly?

One can be conscious, but unaware and unresponsive (vegetative state).
A vegetative state is usually described as a non-conscious state. I'm also not seeing how this ties into the idea of soul as consciousness, unless you're trying to show that soul is consciousness by assert.

Perhaps you meant to say that consciousness and self-awareness are not always present, while the soul is presumed to be so? If you do, you may also want to address the lay argument that the soul sometimes exits the body ('out of body' near-death experiences).
Our conscious mind can be manipulated or tricked. Therefore, it is inconstant and not essential, and not a soul.
This argument could do some work if you develop it further - however, "being able to be tricked" does not generally mean "inconstant."
Energy is not able to direct or manifest itself independently, but creatures with souls can.
This line makes no sense. I can't parse it into something that makes sense.

You're also stumbling upon something that's widely divisive without realizing it: The question of whether or not non-human animals have souls.

Why should the essence not change, though? All you've really said is that the soul doesn't change because the soul is essence and essence doesn't change.
I think that counts as circular reasoning.

I adore going into the whole 'Is the world even real?' thing. :D
Even though it can't be proven, the opposite cannot be proven either. Hence we are unsure which theory to support.

No, I've said that essence doesn't change. The soul is essential, it is not only essence. Truth is essence as well, for example.

Well, you can prove you exist at least...

NS One stop rules shop

Homework: Requests for assistance with homework in any forum, are forbidden.

Just letting you know its probably not the best idea to post here, even if it isn't assistance in your mind. I might be completely wrong but just a friendly warning mods can be picky on such things.

Well, the mind is consciousness to me. It receives information and understands ideas, but Will is responsible for reacting to those ideas and making independent decisions. Basically, the Will is what animates us.
Hmm. What about reflex; the unconscious response to stimulae? Could you say that was what we, as a biological organism, "willed"? Or would you say that it occurred "against our will" because the decision process was dependent on our physiological structure? Is it a process of Mind, in that it is the receipt and manipulation of sensory data, or is it not, in that it occurs at a level in which the information is not processed by the conscious entity?

No, I've said that essence doesn't change. The soul is essential, it is not only essence. Truth is essence as well, for example.

Well, you can prove you exist at least...

No, I can't. I can't prove that I exist at all.
I could merely be a fictitious creation, a character in the dream of some being, a character who happens to think he's real and feel things as though he's real and argue as though he's real, but a character in a dream nonetheless. Even though I'd believe I was real and existed I wouldn't.

As for that first paragraph: I don't understand it, despite being a fairly intelligent philosopher myself.
'The soul is essential, it is not only essence'?
Care to elaborate? Explain why the soul is essential? Explain what the second part of that sentence even meant?
Although I won't argue with the 'truth is essence' point. That I agree with.

A vegetative state is usually described as a non-conscious state. I'm also not seeing how this ties into the idea of soul as consciousness, unless you're trying to show that soul is consciousness by assert.

Perhaps you meant to say that consciousness and self-awareness are not always present, while the soul is presumed to be so? If you do, you may also want to address the lay argument that the soul sometimes exits the body ('out of body' near-death experiences).

This argument could do some work if you develop it further - however, "being able to be tricked" does not generally mean "inconstant."

This line makes no sense. I can't parse it into something that makes sense.

You're also stumbling upon something that's widely divisive without realizing it: The question of whether or not non-human animals have souls.

I'm actually trying to prove the soul is not Consciousness.

Because you could be in a Coma, but people assume that you have still a soul, because you could reawaken. If you are dead, however, you don't have a soul, so you won't reawaken.

What I meant by being able to be tricked is that we can expierence illusions or receive false information through our senses. Thus, it is not an essential thing because it is not always true that it reports what really goes on around us. It only reports what we perceive of what goes on around us.

Energy doesn't randomly decide to do something all of its own accord, does it? Cause and effect. However, Will is the cause for everything, I beleive.

According to my definition, animals do have souls. I don't have the sources here, but certain animals can think for themselves if they have to. To use the famous,documented example, Coco/Koko (I don't remember how the spelled it) the gorilla, who had been taught sign language, one day out of the blue requested a cat from the zookeepers. They brought her a toy cat, but she didn't want it and wanted a real cat. They eventually got her a real cat and she seemed satisfied with it. Therefore, she willed for it and made an independent decision to want a cat.

Hmm. What about reflex; the unconscious response to stimulae? Could you say that was what we, as a biological organism, "willed"? Or would you say that it occurred "against our will" because the decision process was dependent on our physiological structure? Is it a process of Mind, in that it is the receipt and manipulation of sensory data, or is it not, in that it occurs at a level in which the information is not processed by the conscious entity?

Exactly, it is unconscious. It didn't pass through our conscious to relay the information to our will. That is a completely different subject, so I won't try and go too deep into that.

I'm not here to argue, really, I just want to see if my ideas are logically sound.:D

No, I can't. I can't prove that I exist at all.
I could merely be a fictitious creation, a character in the dream of some being, a character who happens to think he's real and feel things as though he's real and argue as though he's real, but a character in a dream nonetheless. Even though I'd believe I was real and existed I wouldn't.

As for that first paragraph: I don't understand it, despite being a fairly intelligent philosopher myself.
'The soul is essential, it is not only essence'?
Care to elaborate? Explain why the soul is essential? Explain what the second part of that sentence even meant?
Although I won't argue with the 'truth is essence' point. That I agree with.

You can prove that you are here though, wherever here is.

Oops, typo. I meant it is not the only essence. There are other essential things out there is what I meant.

Why do I suddenly feel people have gotten really hostile with me?:D

NS One stop rules shop

Homework: Requests for assistance with homework in any forum, are forbidden.

Just letting you know its probably not the best idea to post here, even if it isn't assistance in your mind. I might be completely wrong but just a friendly warning mods can be picky on such things.

Er, its not really homework, I've already done the work...

Thank you for the warning. I guess everyone should stop now if they want to respect the warning. Thanks for whomever contributed, it actually helped. Seriously:D

It's very good, and in depth. However:

I think it would be good to mention some philosophers in more depth and compare and scrutinize their versions of the soul (I know it's retarded but it impresses the examiner).

You can prove that you are here though, wherever here is.

Oops, typo. I meant it is not the only essence. There are other essential things out there is what I meant.

Why do I suddenly feel people have gotten really hostile with me?:D

I seriously doubt this thread will be locked or deleted, since it's become a philosophical argument of its own accord, and the mods seem to look kindly on those.

I'm not being hostile, merely sating my urge as a philosopher to debate. :D
Try searching for my name on the forums. Somewhere I made a thread ostensibly to discuss the existence and nature of God, really to have a philosophical debate because I hadn't had one in a while. Debate is the best form of mental stimulation.

What is 'here'? Is 'here' these specific co-ordinates on which I stand right now? Does that include the future as well, then? Will I still be 'here' in the future, even though I may be at school or may be round at a friend's house? My location? If so, relative to what, as there is no absolute space?

I can't prove anything like this. The only field in which anything, anything can be proven without a doubt is mathematics. Even our most well-worn physical theories are only theories with no proof, merely observational evidence which suggests they may be correct.

And what are those other essential things?
And, as it doesn't seem to have answered it, why do they or the soul have to be constant?

Isn't it generally held that "reality" is a subjective conceptual model constructed by each individual to act as a map between our perceptions and our conceptions?

Don't be silly. We have to assume there's an objective reality and live, or start dribbling and talk about fairy land. Neither can be proved perfectly, but I know which makes more sense.

Yes, please, give all and any counter arguements!

Which points in the last one do you have problems with?

I suppose my problem with the introduction was that I didn't really know what you were meaning by the soul. Perhaps I'm just ignorant of the proper definitions, but it means I don't know if you define the soul to be unchanging or pure will or what. The first 3 paragraphs are good, but they rely heavily of these characteristics, so you have to be clear what your starting point is to keep it logical.



• Argument: Our actions are just our mimicry of others.
• Counter: At some point, there must have been independent thought for mimicry to occur.
• Counter: If this was true, our knowledge level would not advance. This is untrue because our knowledge of the material world has increased significantly.


I'm not sure this argument is necessary or sensible. Creativity or independent thought doesn't need a soul to occur - take computers for example. However, it should be pretty obvious that we aren't just mimicry machines anyway.



• Some animals have souls because they can formulate independent/ non-instinctual thinking.
• Argument: Animals react to external phenomena.
• Counter: The case of Coco the Gorilla, studies of dolphins' improvisation, and the crow's ability to use tools in unnatural situations.


I'm a bit worried by this bit again. You need to be really careful what parts of thinking require the soul. I don't think it's independent thinking, or doing things that aren't pure instinct. I would prefer to pick a kind of executive control, or perhaps self-consciousness. Even then, identifying it in animals isn't straightforward.


• Therefore, none of us truly have true Self, as all we are beings that interpret and understand information, as the only the only thing that makes us unique, our personality, is unessential and ephemeral.
• We are all the same in the end, and our purpose is to gather as much knowledge as possible, as this is our only consistent aspect of our makeup.

The first claim doesn't make any sense to me. What do you mean by Self, and why do you think that personality is the only thing that makes us unique? Why couldn't each person's soul also be uniquely different?

The last claim is unsupported by anything before it. You shouldn't make normative claims about our purpose without showing their source. It seems here that you are using the Aristotelian idea of excelling in our perfect form, having already described what the form of our soul is. If so, don't be shy of that, because it's a pretty good argument.

I'm actually trying to prove the soul is not Consciousness.

Because you could be in a Coma, but people assume that you have still a soul, because you could reawaken. If you are dead, however, you don't have a soul, so you won't reawaken.
Right. You just have the bullet on your outline wrong, because the bullet says people in vegetative states are conscious.
What I meant by being able to be tricked is that we can expierence illusions or receive false information through our senses. Thus, it is not an essential thing because it is not always true that it reports what really goes on around us. It only reports what we perceive of what goes on around us.
Well, that still doesn't get you anywhere. Consciousness exists regardless of whether or not the sensory data it gets is accurate, i.e., remains "essential."
Energy doesn't randomly decide to do something all of its own accord, does it?
It can, actually. Does all the time, in fact, at the Planck scale. So does an atom have a soul?

There's actually an interesting argument related to that, which relates the free will of the particle through the uncertainty principle and chaos to the free will of the brain.

(I will warn you, incidentally, that dualism is mostly out of fashion for modern philosophers, but you shouldn't find that a problem at your level.)
Cause and effect. However, Will is the cause for everything, I beleive.

According to my definition, animals do have souls. I don't have the sources here, but certain animals can think for themselves if they have to. To use the famous,documented example, Coco/Koko (I don't remember how the spelled it) the gorilla, who had been taught sign language, one day out of the blue requested a cat from the zookeepers. They brought her a toy cat, but she didn't want it and wanted a real cat. They eventually got her a real cat and she seemed satisfied with it. Therefore, she willed for it and made an independent decision to want a cat.
Depending on how long a paper this will be, you may want to either develop that further, or footnote an abbreviated form acknowledging the dispute and stating your opinion.

No, I can't. I can't prove that I exist at all.
I suspect that the "I" is a logical progression from any axiomatic system used to define existence. If you can formalise what is meant by "exist", I am reasonably confident I can prove my own existence. Indeed, if this system includes both identity and sensory data, I'm confident I can prove yours, too.

Why do I suddenly feel people have gotten really hostile with me?:D
We're not. We're actually helping you. This is what "help" looks like in philosophical circles. :D

Don't be silly. We have to assume there's an objective reality and live, or start dribbling and talk about fairy land. Neither can be proved perfectly, but I know which makes more sense.
You have to assume there's a reality. You don't have to assume there's an objective one. Your model and someone else's model might not match, but that doesn't necessarily mean that one or the other of you must be held to be incorrect.

Work on your arguments. At least as you've described them here, they're full of holes.

And clarify what you mean by "essence", since the only constant conception of "soul" you seem to be using is "that which is essential."

Counter: The departure of our soul occurs when we are dead or unable to access our conscious mind, making us inanimate. Therefore, our inanimate state can be compared to our animated state, and with empirical evidence of the two comparisons, rationally, we can deduce that there must be a principle of animation. The soul is the reason for this, and it can be studied, not directly, but through its effects.

How do you know the soul is the reason for this?

Why need this "principle of animation" have anything to do with essence or soul? Indeed, it seems to have much more to do with energy.

Therefore, she willed for it and made an independent decision to want a cat.

A variety of external stimuli interacted with the complex brain physiology of Koko such that she was caused to request a cat.

Prove me wrong.

(Recall that plenty of physical phenomena to which no one anymore accounts volition or souledness have no obvious external causes.)

The same argument can be used with humans, not just animals.

MNy first thought was, "3000 words of philosophy? That's easy."

Then I saw that you'd chosen metaphysics, rather than the much easier ethics or epistemology (or even aesthetics). Metaphysics is, at its heart, entirely baseless, so you're really going for 3000 words of pure conjecture. If you can think of enough BS to fill the pages, that can work.

Your outline seems like a good start, but you've left youself open to a good attack from Wittgenstein or any sort of global skeptic, particularly a Pyrrhonian skeptic. You need to justify your suppositions better.

I seriously doubt this thread will be locked or deleted, since it's become a philosophical argument of its own accord, and the mods seem to look kindly on those.

I'm not being hostile, merely sating my urge as a philosopher to debate. :D
Try searching for my name on the forums. Somewhere I made a thread ostensibly to discuss the existence and nature of God, really to have a philosophical debate because I hadn't had one in a while. Debate is the best form of mental stimulation.

What is 'here'? Is 'here' these specific co-ordinates on which I stand right now? Does that include the future as well, then? Will I still be 'here' in the future, even though I may be at school or may be round at a friend's house? My location? If so, relative to what, as there is no absolute space?

I can't prove anything like this. The only field in which anything, anything can be proven without a doubt is mathematics. Even our most well-worn physical theories are only theories with no proof, merely observational evidence which suggests they may be correct.

And what are those other essential things?
And, as it doesn't seem to have answered it, why do they or the soul have to be constant?


Here is your present location. What you want that to be is up to you.

If we follow that logic, we're basically going into the whole 'we can't really prove anything' phase of philosophy, which is just useless in my opinion, because we can get pretty darn close to the truth, even if we cannot without a doubt prove it. Therefore, unless you have a better way of proving thing qualitatively, we must accept, not necessarily beleive though, anything that appears logically sound as possible.

Yes, the point of the soul being constant to me is that there must be a reason we don't just randomly stop being able to control ourselves at any point of time. Note, the body being unresponsive because of paralysis, for example, is totally different because that is a problem of your physical form, not the soul itself being unable to will your body to do something. I can't really think of a really convincing counter argument for why it must be constant though, as of yet, but if I get one, I'll put it out there.

Don't be silly. We have to assume there's an objective reality and live, or start dribbling and talk about fairy land. Neither can be proved perfectly, but I know which makes more sense.



I suppose my problem with the introduction was that I didn't really know what you were meaning by the soul. Perhaps I'm just ignorant of the proper definitions, but it means I don't know if you define the soul to be unchanging or pure will or what. The first 3 paragraphs are good, but they rely heavily of these characteristics, so you have to be clear what your starting point is to keep it logical.



I'm not sure this argument is necessary or sensible. Creativity or independent thought doesn't need a soul to occur - take computers for example. However, it should be pretty obvious that we aren't just mimicry machines anyway.




I'm a bit worried by this bit again. You need to be really careful what parts of thinking require the soul. I don't think it's independent thinking, or doing things that aren't pure instinct. I would prefer to pick a kind of executive control, or perhaps self-consciousness. Even then, identifying it in animals isn't straightforward.



The first claim doesn't make any sense to me. What do you mean by Self, and why do you think that personality is the only thing that makes us unique? Why couldn't each person's soul also be uniquely different?

The last claim is unsupported by anything before it. You shouldn't make normative claims about our purpose without showing their source. It seems here that you are using the Aristotelian idea of excelling in our perfect form, having already described what the form of our soul is. If so, don't be shy of that, because it's a pretty good argument.

Oh sorry, yeah. For me, The soul is the unchanging ability to will physically or mentally. The intro is supposed to introduce other theories, not my own. The main arguement is my theory.

The mimicry arguement is needed because one could say that nothing we do is independent of our mimicry of others, so we never really have true independent thought or action.

Computers cannot just randomly decide to do something. They follow a code, but no matter how complex that code may appear to make them to be, they are still stuck within the parameters of the code in actions. Until true A.I. is prove, we can't really talk about it with a definite answer.

Yeah, the wording for the animals bit should be, 'We can prove some animals have souls according to this definition...' but whatever, I think you understand the basic idea of what I'm saying. I'll elaborate on the proofs. Coco the gorilla displayed her will by communicating her desire for a pet cat to her zookeepers, so that works. The dolphins thing was a show on Animal Planet, I think, where dolphins that were trained to certain tricks through hand-signals, and then taught that one hand signal meant they made one up for themselves, and each dolphin did a different trick that no-one had taught them as a command. The crow is an article, I think, I don't where it is right now, where the crow was placed in a room with a piece of meat tied above a chair by a knotted string, and they crow managed to untie the knot on the first try, though it had never seen the knot before. It was an unnatural situation and could not have been instinct.

No, our souls all the same abilities and purpose. They're all the same, I think. I'm not really trying to argue anything Aristotelean, but I guess if that's your impression, maybe it is so.

Right. You just have the bullet on your outline wrong, because the bullet says people in vegetative states are conscious.

Well, that still doesn't get you anywhere. Consciousness exists regardless of whether or not the sensory data it gets is accurate, i.e., remains "essential."

It can, actually. Does all the time, in fact, at the Planck scale. So does an atom have a soul?

There's actually an interesting argument related to that, which relates the free will of the particle through the uncertainty principle and chaos to the free will of the brain.

(I will warn you, incidentally, that dualism is mostly out of fashion for modern philosophers, but you shouldn't find that a problem at your level.)

Depending on how long a paper this will be, you may want to either develop that further, or footnote an abbreviated form acknowledging the dispute and stating your opinion.

What I mean is by them being conscious is that their bodies will receive information, but it is not accessed by the soul. It's a bit awkward to explain.

Well, that is still being debated. Perhaps they do in fact have souls, as this would perfectly fit into the Coherentist framework that the universe is attempting to fulfill a goal of some kind, as it uses those atoms to do so. Mabye. I'm open to the idea. We are made up of atoms anyway :D

I'm not really being dualist by saying that we have another ethereal plane, I'm just describing the soul as the thing that animates us in this life. I'm only talking about the soul while it is in the body, not where it comes from or where it goes after we die.

It's going to be fairly long, so I will try and do that. Thanks :)

Work on your arguments. At least as you've described them here, they're full of holes.

And clarify what you mean by "essence", since the only constant conception of "soul" you seem to be using is "that which is essential."



How do you know the soul is the reason for this?

Why need this "principle of animation" have anything to do with essence or soul? Indeed, it seems to have much more to do with energy.

Yes, I agree. I need to work on the essence= soul part, because a lot of people have been telling me that. I will try and do so.

One of the arguements I've thought of against it being energy is that while energy is the fuel of physical form, the soul is director of the physical form. Also, the soul cannot be measured or converted into other forms of energy, like our conception of energy, so it cannot be energy according the current definitions and our knowledge of energy.

A variety of external stimuli interacted with the complex brain physiology of Koko such that she was caused to request a cat.

Prove me wrong.

(Recall that plenty of physical phenomena to which no one anymore accounts volition or souledness have no obvious external causes.)

The same argument can be used with humans, not just animals.

Unless you can state what stimuli they were, and are able to reproduce the results, you have no case. You can say stuff along the lines of the Butterfly Effect, it sounds reasonable, but you can't prove it either.

"I never Metaphysics I didn't like." -me

"I cheated on my metaphysics exam. I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me." -Woody Allen.

Question: What is the Soul?

• Argument: There is no such thing as a soul.
• Counter: What causes us to be alive? Neither consciousness nor the personality is essential, and these are what make us animate sentient beings alongside the soul. If both are non-essential, what is the essence that holds us sentient creatures?

The term "essential" is often misused, hence poorly defined. "Necessary" might be better. Also, the question about the "essence makes us sentients" is a logical leap. Are we sure an "essence" is needed to make humans "sentient"? Remember, "sentient" is from latin and means "perceiving" in its strict philological meaning.


• Argument: Essence cannot be studied, and is only speculation. Therefore, there is no proof to prove it true.

I'd use "real" instead of "true". "Real" means measurable. "True" means logically consistent with your postulates; but postulates, of course, are conventions we can accept or reject - see non-euclidean geometries.


• Counter: The departure of our soul occurs when we are dead or unable to access our conscious mind, making us inanimate. Therefore, our inanimate state can be compared to our animated state, and with empirical evidence of the two comparisons, rationally, we can deduce that there must be a principle of animation. The soul is the reason for this, and it can be studied, not directly, but through its effects.

There is no medically or scientifically ascertained thing as "departure of soul". You're giving a common jargon, based on tradition, the dignity of a medical fact.
Also, your counter merely gives this "priniciple of animation" (or "cause" thereof) the name of "soul", but you fail to give any reason for the identification of this "cause" with the concept generally and traditionally known as "soul" - also, this process carries a lot of traditional meanings with it, but you cannot afford yourself to take traditional meanings of "soul" in an essay about the nature of "soul" itself.

added: beware of the difference between "anima" (soul) and "animus" ("living spirit").


• Counter: Our consciousness can be proven (Cogito Ergo Sum: I think therefore I am)

No. This argument was proven to be tautological. Hence, it isn't a proof.


and our soul is connected to consciousness. Therefore, because the soul represents the independent side of the human essence, which through experiment can be proven true,

What experiment? You should state the kind of experiment, or at least of Gedankenexperiment, that you would use.
Also, claiming "because the sould represents" somewhat, is a logical loop. You are using a statement that should represent the conclusion of your essay as a postulate. Id est, you are postulating your own conclusions, and this nullifiews the logical validity of your argument.


as opposed to consciousness as the reactive side which receives the information but does not act independently.

First Paragraph:
• Soul is not personality/character/ego.
• It cannot be because character changes.
• Soul is essential, therefore, it cannot change.

You never stated clearly why soul should be essential, and why essences cannot change. If I burn a piece of wood, has the essence of the matter changed or hasn't it? If it has, then essence can change. If it hasn't, the "wood" essence has ceased to exist and the "smoke" essence has begun to exist. Hence, essence can change, again, because switching between the |existant> and |non-existant> states means changing.


Second Paragraph:
• Soul is not consciousness.
• One can be conscious, but unaware and unresponsive (vegetative state).
• Our conscious mind can be manipulated or tricked. Therefore, it is inconstant and not essential, and not a soul.
• Therefore, it cannot be soul.

Third Paragraph:
• Soul is not energy.
• Energy is not able to direct or manifest itself independently, but creatures with souls can.
• Therefore, soul is not energy.

Energy is a physical quantity. We aren't talking physics here. Also, energy is able to manifest itself (radiation and matter, and the effects thereof like the sense of sight, the gravitation force etc). Physics and metaphysics don't mix.


Fourth Paragraph (Main argument):
• The Soul is Will.

A clear postulate that doesn't resort to logical loops or jumps. Good.


• Any creature that the ability to direct itself independently in either action or thought has a soul.
• Humans can be proven to have souls because they can do both.

Valid, consistent with your postulate and with common experience.


• Argument: Our actions are just our mimicry of others.

Are you sure this is an argument?


• Counter: At some point, there must have been independent thought for mimicry to occur.
• Counter: If this was true, our knowledge level would not advance. This is untrue because our knowledge of the material world has increased significantly.
• Argument: If our soul is our ability to think or act independently, many people lose this ability when their consciousness is affected, and therefore soul is not will, or essential.

Again, see the thing about the changes of essence above. The "essence" concept is tricky.


• Counter: If our consciousness is tricked or manipulated, we act independently with the information presented to us by our consciousness. It is only by freeing consciousness can we achieve independent thinking with true information.
• Some animals have souls because they can formulate independent/ non-instinctual thinking.
• Argument: Animals react to external phenomena.
• Counter: The case of Coco the Gorilla, studies of dolphins' improvisation, and the crow's ability to use tools in unnatural situations.

Good, and logically consistent. It provides an operative definition of the concept called "soul".


Conclusion:
• The soul is independent of the self, consciousness and is not energy.
• Soul is Will.
• Humans and Some animals have souls.
• All people have souls, but do not use their souls abilities correct because their consciousness is blocked from true reality.
• The Soul, Consciousness and Personality make up the makeup of a person, but the only essential part of the person is the Soul and Consciousness.
You've never discussed the "consciousness" issue before, hence, you are postulating this.


• Therefore, none of us truly have true Self, as all we are beings that interpret and understand information, as the only the only thing that makes us unique, our personality, is unessential and ephemeral.
The use of "ephemeral" is ok, it allows to avoid the "essence".


• We are all the same in the end, and our purpose is to gather as much knowledge as possible, as this is our only consistent aspect of our makeup.
Logical jump. You never discussed the "purpose" issue. You'd want to explain the need for "purpose" and its link to the "soul" that is the object of your essay if you want to talk about it.

I think that you should expand the fourth paragraph and the subsequent conclusions (already good, but deserve more), and avoid the trickiness of some concepts and traditional misconceptions you discussed in the first three paragraphs.

"I never Metaphysics I didn't like." -me

"I cheated on my metaphysics exam. I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me." -Woody Allen.

Ah, the immortal genius of Woody Allen.

Don't be silly. We have to assume there's an objective reality and live, or start dribbling and talk about fairy land.

The Buddhists seem to manage darn well without assuming the existence of an objective rality, no?

You have to assume there's a reality. You don't have to assume there's an objective one. Your model and someone else's model might not match, but that doesn't necessarily mean that one or the other of you must be held to be incorrect.

The concept of reality implies objectivity - we talk about reality when we want to call on the concept of something measurable and objective. Of course, the perception of reality may be different, depending on who's percieving the reality (and the frame of the observer). Different person or different frame, different perception, still one reality.
Just like in relativity. I see this ruler, I measure it and I think it's 30 cm long; an observer in another frame of reference might measure it 28 cm; still, the ruler is real.

Just like in relativity. I see this ruler, I measure it and I think it's 30 cm long; an observer in another frame of reference might measure it 28 cm; still, the ruler is real.

...and what if the ruler is measured to be 0 cm? What then?

The Buddhists seem to manage darn well without assuming the existence of an objective rality, no?

Buddhism has great respect for reality. We know this place, no matter how transitory, is real.

I'm a converted Buddhist, by the way, though I'm not at all trying to prove anything in my arguement about Buddhism, if anyone wonders why I'm using the Buddhist definition. I'm just using it to provide a framework for the arguement.

...and what if the ruler is measured to be 0 cm? What then?

Uh... I'm not doing the calculation right away now, but:

1."0" is a real number, hence it is a legitimate result of an observation.
2.I think it would mean that you're travelling at c (length contraction). Since nothing massive can travel at c (only photons, who have 0 mass, do), an "observer" (supposedly massive) cannot measure a 0 length for an object that is long 30cm in some other frame of reference. Again, I should do the calculation, which I'm not going to do right now, maybe tomorrow.

Uh... I'm not doing the calculation right away now, but:

1."0" is a real number, hence it is a legitimate result of an observation.
2.I think it would mean that you're travelling at c (length contraction). Since nothing massive can travel at c (only photons, who have 0 mass, do), an "observer" (supposedly massive) cannot measure a 0 length for an object that is long 30cm in some other frame of reference. Again, I should do the calculation, which I'm not going to do right now, maybe tomorrow.

Actually, photons do have mass. It's ridiculously tiny, but they do.
Indeed, if they didn't, then Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle would turn out to be completely wrong.

The term "essential" is often misused, hence poorly defined. "Necessary" might be better. Also, the question about the "essence makes us sentients" is a logical leap. Are we sure an "essence" is needed to make humans "sentient"? Remember, "sentient" is from latin and means "perceiving" in its strict philological meaning.


I'd use "real" instead of "true". "Real" means measurable. "True" means logically consistent with your postulates; but postulates, of course, are conventions we can accept or reject - see non-euclidean geometries.


There is no medically or scientifically ascertained thing as "departure of soul". You're giving a common jargon, based on tradition, the dignity of a medical fact.
Also, your counter merely gives this "priniciple of animation" (or "cause" thereof) the name of "soul", but you fail to give any reason for the identification of this "cause" with the concept generally and traditionally known as "soul" - also, this process carries a lot of traditional meanings with it, but you cannot afford yourself to take traditional meanings of "soul" in an essay about the nature of "soul" itself.

added: beware of the difference between "anima" (soul) and "animus" ("living spirit").


No. This argument was proven to be tautological. Hence, it isn't a proof.


What experiment? You should state the kind of experiment, or at least of Gedankenexperiment, that you would use.
Also, claiming "because the sould represents" somewhat, is a logical loop. You are using a statement that should represent the conclusion of your essay as a postulate. Id est, you are postulating your own conclusions, and this nullifiews the logical validity of your argument.


You never stated clearly why soul should be essential, and why essences cannot change. If I burn a piece of wood, has the essence of the matter changed or hasn't it? If it has, then essence can change. If it hasn't, the "wood" essence has ceased to exist and the "smoke" essence has begun to exist. Hence, essence can change, again, because switching between the |existant> and |non-existant> states means changing.


Energy is a physical quantity. We aren't talking physics here. Also, energy is able to manifest itself (radiation and matter, and the effects thereof like the sense of sight, the gravitation force etc). Physics and metaphysics don't mix.


A clear postulate that doesn't resort to logical loops or jumps. Good.


Valid, consistent with your postulate and with common experience.


Are you sure this is an argument?


Again, see the thing about the changes of essence above. The "essence" concept is tricky.


Good, and logically consistent. It provides an operative definition of the concept called "soul".


You've never discussed the "consciousness" issue before, hence, you are postulating this.


The use of "ephemeral" is ok, it allows to avoid the "essence".


Logical jump. You never discussed the "purpose" issue. You'd want to explain the need for "purpose" and its link to the "soul" that is the object of your essay if you want to talk about it.

I think that you should expand the fourth paragraph and the subsequent conclusions (already good, but deserve more), and avoid the trickiness of some concepts and traditional misconceptions you discussed in the first three paragraphs.

Yes, you're completely right, I should have defined my terms, which I will do on the actual paper. I have to, but I should have done for the sake of you people, as you know nothing about my conceptions.

Actually, I'm sort of using the Platonic view of the material world, that because it does change, the physical world is unessential. So, yes, those are unessential things.

But that's the point. I'm saying the soul is not matter nor energy. It is neither of them. How is energy able to manifest itself? I'm interested, as I need to prove it isn't energy.

You are correct I need to define the soul = essential area. A lot of people have told this already. I will do this when I revise this draft.


Well, for expiermentation, I mean that it can be proven through expiermentation. However, I am not going to actually do the expierment... I don't think they'd allow it anyway. It would be rather funny going around talking to people in Comas and dead people about their souls. :D

How was Cogito Ergo Sum prove incorrect? I never stumbled across this fact myself. Remember, I am rather new to Philosophy myself, so I may be commiting elementary mistakes a lot here.

Actually, photons do have mass. It's ridiculously tiny, but they do.
Indeed, if they didn't, then Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle would turn out to be completely wrong.

How did a sub-discussion start here? And why? :confused:

Actually, photons do have mass. It's ridiculously tiny, but they do.
Indeed, if they didn't, then Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle would turn out to be completely wrong.

Really? That doesn't seem to work with the equations I learnt about for special relativity. But then, I'm no expert.

You have to assume there's a reality. You don't have to assume there's an objective one. Your model and someone else's model might not match, but that doesn't necessarily mean that one or the other of you must be held to be incorrect.

I can't understand how people can believe such a ridiculous thing.

Suppose I believed that there wasn't an objective reality, and instead you were right. When I fall in love with a girl, I would believe that there existed both my own subjective reality and her subjective reality. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to view her as an equal human.

Now, I want to do things that make her happy, and your theory lets me act in ways that make her look happy in my reality. But it matters to me that she is happy and loves me in her reality as well as in my own. But what can I do? We are living in separate worlds, and I have no reason to think that kissing her would even register in her reality, that the laws of physics in my reality can reach over and affect hers. So I might as well give up on the thing that is most important to me in life.

Or perhaps I shouldn't assume that there's no objective reality between us after all?

Actually, thinking over it, it may be the energy in the electromagnetic radiation that is light which is the main cause behind Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but I've just checked my encyclopaedia and it says a photon has a mass of about 5.3*10^(-63) kg.

@Anadyr Islands:
All of NSG is one big off-topic mess. Even original posts.

Edit: ARGH! I hate my new title!

but you can't prove it either.

No, but the burden of proof is on you.

You are the one trying to PROVE independently-willed action. So you must disprove the other possibility - you must show how only your explanation of events can hold, and not mine.

One of the arguements I've thought of against it being energy is that while energy is the fuel of physical form, the soul is director of the physical form.

Then do not say that the soul serves as the "principle of animation." Say that the soul serves as the director of animation.

The concept of reality implies objectivity - we talk about reality when we want to call on the concept of something measurable and objective. Of course, the perception of reality may be different, depending on who's percieving the reality (and the frame of the observer). Different person or different frame, different perception, still one reality.
Just like in relativity. I see this ruler, I measure it and I think it's 30 cm long; an observer in another frame of reference might measure it 28 cm; still, the ruler is real.
I'm not so sure. There is an element of abstraction in measurement that expands the definition of Reality to something more than an objective origin of sensory data.

The existence of the ruler makes for a good example. You say that the ruler is objectively real because it is something that is measurable; what happens when an individual incapable of such measurements tries to evaluate its reality? One could imagine a microscopic entity that would have no concept of the boundaries of the ruler, and one could imagine a macroscopic entity that would be so large as to be physically incapable of determining the dimensions of the ruler. Is the ruler still real, even where perception is impossible? It cannot be, for we denounce those things that we cannot perceive as "unreal".

It cannot be, for we denounce those things that we cannot perceive as "unreal".

I don't.

I can't perceive the consciousness of other people. I still think it's real.

You probably do, too.

I'm not so sure. There is an element of abstraction in measurement that expands the definition of Reality to something more than an objective origin of sensory data.

The existence of the ruler makes for a good example. You say that the ruler is objectively real because it is something that is measurable; what happens when an individual incapable of such measurements tries to evaluate its reality? One could imagine a microscopic entity that would have no concept of the boundaries of the ruler, and one could imagine a macroscopic entity that would be so large as to be physically incapable of determining the dimensions of the ruler. Is the ruler still real, even where perception is impossible? It cannot be, for we denounce those things that we cannot perceive as "unreal".

I think the difference lies in actively denouncing those things which we do not perceive and merely acknowledging that, as we can't perceive them, we can't prove that it exists nor prove that it doesn't.
Your argument can be likened to an atheistic view, whereas normally people choose a view which is similar to agnosticism. A form of scientific agnosticism is indeed the foundation of all science.

I can't understand how people can believe such a ridiculous thing.

Suppose I believed that there wasn't an objective reality, and instead you were right. When I fall in love with a girl, I would believe that there existed both my own subjective reality and her subjective reality. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to view her as an equal human.

Now, I want to do things that make her happy, and your theory lets me act in ways that make her look happy in my reality. But it matters to me that she is happy and loves me in her reality as well as in my own. But what can I do? We are living in separate worlds, and I have no reason to think that kissing her would even register in her reality, that the laws of physics in my reality can reach over and affect hers. So I might as well give up on the thing that is most important to me in life.

Or perhaps I shouldn't assume that there's no objective reality between us after all?
You're jumping to conclusions. "Objective" does not just mean "common"; it means "absolute". The lack of an objective reality is about the intrisic impossibility of there being rules of perception that are universal - ie, that are true or false to every possible free agent - not about there being no rules that any number of agents can agree on, or even that two or more agents might potentially agree on holding an equal set of rules.

The lack of an objective reality is about the intrisic impossibility of there being rules of perception that are universal - ie, that are true or false to every possible free agent - not about there being no rules that any number of agents can agree on, or even that two or more agents might potentially agree on holding an equal set of rules.

I have an object with certain characteristics.

Ten people perceive it in ten different ways.

In what sense does objective truth about the object somehow not exist, simply because our means of perceiving it are different?

Sure, ignore my post then... :(

:D

I don't.

I can't perceive the consciousness of other people. I still think it's real.

You probably do, too.
I don't think it's objectively real, which I guess is the point I'm getting at. I think the consciousness of myself and others exists at a level of abstraction that I happen to be capable of understanding, but that to many other thinking agents that may not be the case.

I think the difference lies in actively denouncing those things which we do not perceive and merely acknowledging that, as we can't perceive them, we can't prove that it exists nor prove that it doesn't.
Your argument can be likened to an atheistic view, whereas normally people choose a view which is similar to agnosticism. A form of scientific agnosticism is indeed the foundation of all science.
(Just to clarify, my assertion of "unreal" was in relation to reality as verifiable objectivity)

The thing is that the notion of a verifiable objective reality falls apart when we acknowledge that we can knowably neither prove nor disprove something. And there are things that are knowably undeterminable in any objective model of reality, which is what leads me to suspect that objectivism is inherently impossible.

I don't think it's objectively real, which I guess is the point I'm getting at. I think the consciousness of myself and others exists at a level of abstraction that I happen to be capable of understanding, but that to many other thinking agents that may not be the case.


(Just to clarify, my assertion of "unreal" was in relation to reality as verifiable objectivity)

The thing is that the notion of a verifiable objective reality falls apart when we acknowledge that we can knowably neither prove nor disprove something. And there are things that are knowably undeterminable in any objective model of reality, which is what leads me to suspect that objectivism is inherently impossible.

I think you share my viewpoint, actually.

I have an object with certain characteristics.

Ten people perceive it in ten different ways.

In what sense does objective truth about the object somehow not exist, simply because our means of perceiving it are different?
Well, by any means of perception, it is impossible to find such objective truth, because it requires one to be capable of perceiving things from every level of abstraction, including its own, which thus creates a logically unverifiable infinite loop. I can't prove that there is no objective truth, but since it is by necessity impossibly perceivable then it seems reasonable to state that it might as well be unreal.

The concept of reality implies objectivity

I think Risottia has it exactly right actually. I don't see what was wrong with my last argument (it makes no sense for you to allow a shared reality when an awkward argument demands it, but not accept we all share one reality). But it really is superfluous. Human reason, logic and language are all fundamentally tied up in the idea that there is a shared objective reality. We are inherently social creatures whose language is concerned with a shared world. For example, when you say 'there are many subjective realities, but no universal reality', I take that to mean 'the objective reality is that there are many subjective realities, but no universal reality'. Obviously such a statement would be self-contradictory. It seems to me that if you want to deny objective reality, you give up the ability to make any claims, say anything of substance, or interact with other people in a meaningful way. I can't prove that such an assumption is false, but I maintain that its conclusion is dribbling and talking about fairy land.

It seems to me that if you want to deny objective reality, you give up the ability to make any claims, say anything of substance, or interact with other people in a meaningful way. I can't prove that such an assumption is false, but I maintain that its conclusion is dribbling and talking about fairy land.
You're denying, then, that subjective realities have any value?

I don't think it's objectively real, which I guess is the point I'm getting at. I think the consciousness of myself and others exists at a level of abstraction that I happen to be capable of understanding, but that to many other thinking agents that may not be the case.

So the mere fact that some people are blind means that objective truth about visual characteristics doesn't exist?

That doesn't make much sense to me. Certainly it is no less plausible to say that objective truth about visual characteristics exists, but some of us can perceive it (possibly imperfectly, or mistakenly) and some of us can't.

Well, by any means of perception, it is impossible to find such objective truth, because it requires one to be capable of perceiving things from every level of abstraction, including its own, which thus creates a logically unverifiable infinite loop.

It requires that we escape perception entirely.

I can't prove that there is no objective truth, but since it is by necessity impossibly perceivable then it seems reasonable to state that it might as well be unreal.

Nonsense.

Objective truth matters even if we cannot perceive it. Whether a person is merely a construct of my mind or an independently-existing person with a mind of her own is a question that, among other things, is very important in terms of how I will treat her.

Actually, photons do have mass. It's ridiculously tiny, but they do.
Indeed, if they didn't, then Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle would turn out to be completely wrong.

No. Photons do not have mass. Maybe you're mixing with the neutrinos.

And no, not at all. Heisenberg's principle is about the precision of the measurement of two conjugated observables - typically, position and momentum. In wave mechanics, momentum isn't the classical newtonian momentum (mass*speed); it is given by the De Broglie equation that links wavelength, momentum and the action quantum (Planck's constant).

No, mass isn't an element of a conjugated couple of observables, hence H.U.P doesn't apply.

No. Photons do not have mass. Maybe you're mixing with the neutrinos.

And no, not at all. Heisenberg's principle is about the precision of the measurement of two conjugated observables - typically, position and momentum. In wave mechanics, momentum isn't the classical newtonian momentum (mass*speed); it is given by the De Broglie equation that links wavelength, momentum and the action quantum (Planck's constant).

No, mass isn't an element of a conjugated couple of observables, hence H.U.P doesn't apply.

I know what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states; I was trying to remember the reason.
I can't remember whether it was disturbance of the particle by photons or by light radiation.

Actually, I'm sort of using the Platonic view of the material world, that because it does change, the physical world is unessential. So, yes, those are unessential things.

Ok, then, since the essay will be read by someone who is supposed to know about Plato, stating that you're moving inside the frame of Plato's philosophy could be enough.


But that's the point. I'm saying the soul is not matter nor energy. It is neither of them. How is energy able to manifest itself? I'm interested, as I need to prove it isn't energy.
That is: you're saying that the soul isn't an object of physics.
Energy is an observable quantity of the physical world. You can measure it by its effects, like the work you're able to extract from a system who is supposed to have some energy stored in it. If I'm able to extract 1 joule of work from a steam locomotive, I'm sure that the boiler had at least 1 joule of energy "inside" it. Also, Einstein's relativity states that energy can be stored in the form of rest mass (E=mc^2). We know also that a massive object moving "has" energy in the form of kynetical energy.
Look for the principles of thermodynamics, but we're going deep into physics.


Well, for expiermentation, I mean that it can be proven through expiermentation. However, I am not going to actually do the expierment... I don't think they'd allow it anyway. It would be rather funny going around talking to people in Comas and dead people about their souls. :D
I mean, a Gedankenexperiment is an thought-only experiment; this is what Einstein did for special relativity. Look it up in wiki, I'm sure it is explained.


How was Cogito Ergo Sum prove incorrect? I never stumbled across this fact myself. Remember, I am rather new to Philosophy myself, so I may be commiting elementary mistakes a lot here.

I think that some of the great logicists (?) of the 20th century (Bertie Russel maybe) did prove that "cogito, ergo sum" is a tautology - hence perfectly true but not improving our knowledge of a single bit. This is because to say "cogito" (I think) you are already implicity assuming that you exist. This makes the "cogito, ergo sum" a statement that says: "I exist, and I am able of being the subject of an action/verb, I do that; hence, I exist". That is, the thesis was already taken as hypotesis. It is a logic loop.

Ok, then, since the essay will be read by someone who is supposed to know about Plato, stating that you're moving inside the frame of Plato's philosophy could be enough.


That is: you're saying that the soul isn't an object of physics.
Energy is an observable quantity of the physical world. You can measure it by its effects, like the work you're able to extract from a system who is supposed to have some energy stored in it. If I'm able to extract 1 joule of work from a steam locomotive, I'm sure that the boiler had at least 1 joule of energy "inside" it. Also, Einstein's relativity states that energy can be stored in the form of rest mass (E=mc^2). We know also that a massive object moving "has" energy in the form of kynetical energy.
Look for the principles of thermodynamics, but we're going deep into physics.


I mean, a Gedankenexperiment is an thought-only experiment; this is what Einstein did for special relativity. Look it up in wiki, I'm sure it is explained.



I think that some of the great logicists (?) of the 20th century (Bertie Russel maybe) did prove that "cogito, ergo sum" is a tautology - hence perfectly true but not improving our knowledge of a single bit. This is because to say "cogito" (I think) you are already implicity assuming that you exist. This makes the "cogito, ergo sum" a statement that says: "I exist, and I am able of being the subject of an action/verb, I do that; hence, I exist". That is, the thesis was already taken as hypotesis. It is a logic loop.

Yes, true, but a resting object can have energy, potential energy, right? However, in my arguement, the energy fuels the body, while the soul directs the body. Because you can pump energy into a lifeless/dead/soulless body, and you may get feedback from the muscles or bones or whatever. However, as soon the energy stops, it stops as well. Also, while the energy is going through the tissue, the tissue does not decide to do something using the energy all of its own accord, like say, get up and walk around if it is a body(assuming it is still connected to the galvanizing energy source). This is because it has no soul to direct the fueled vehicle.

Also, though gravity cannot be 'felt' in the traditional sense, one can measure its effects, the same as one measure a soul in the expiermental manner, as I will probably describe in great detail on the paper. But, I think you get the idea behind the expierment, right?

Yes, I looked it up today myself as well. I understand that you could say that the statement 'anything that has thoughts must exist' is unfounded, but you could consider that if a thing does not exist though it has thoughts, how is this possible? Anything non-existant cannot create something existant, and thoughts(at least our own) are existant. I'll probably have to defend Cogito Ergo Sum if I want to use it as well, I suppose. God, this is going to be a looooong paper.:p

God, this is going to be a looooong paper.:p
Citations are your friend. :D