Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body

[shunyadragon]

The point is Shuny, since we both know that God created and directed the process (whether it is evolutionary or not) we have no idea if nature, without the direction of God, could create the universe and life as we see it today.

Your 'arguing from vague ignorance,' which is not relevant to the discussion.

[seer]

Your 'arguing from vague ignorance,' which is not relevant to the discussion.

What are you talking about Shuny? How do you know that nature apart from the activity of God could create this present state of affairs? Where is you evidence that such a thing would be possible?

[shunyadragon]

What are you talking about Shuny? How do you know that nature apart from the activity of God could create this present state of affairs? Where is you evidence that such a thing would be possible?

I definitely do NOT KNOW the activity of God, and there are many disagreements between you and I concerning the nature of the 'activity of God.' I am not that arrogant to make that claim. Yes, I believe in God, and the Creator of our physical existence.

As fare as the nature of our physical existence the objective verifiable evidence and the tried and true methods of science provide the best answers as to how God Created our physical existence. I believe God Created our physical existence by the Laws of Nature and natural processes.God does not create contradictions in the evidence of the nature of our physical existence.

[seer]

I definitely do NOT KNOW the activity of God, and there are many disagreements between you and I concerning the nature of the 'activity of God.' I am not that arrogant to make that claim. Yes, I believe in God, and the Creator of our physical existence.

As fare as the nature of our physical existence the objective verifiable evidence and the tried and true methods of science provide the best answers as to how God Created our physical existence. I believe God Created our physical existence by the Laws of Nature and natural processes.God does not create contradictions in the evidence of the nature of our physical existence.

Right, which means that there is no reason to think that nature under her own steam could accomplish it.

[shunyadragon]

Right, which means that there is no reason to think that nature under her own steam could accomplish it.

Does not address the problem. Your playing the Three Stooges Duck Bob and Weave.

Try again to address my post.

[seer]

Does not address the problem. Your playing the Three Stooges Duck Bob and Weave.

Try again to address my post.

In did, there is no evidence that nature alone could do all this.

[Tassman]

In did, there is no evidence that nature alone could do all this.

That is the only evidence we have. Some may believe that there was supernatural input, but there is no evidence of this.

[shunyadragon]

In did, there is no evidence that nature alone could do all this.

Unfortunately you are living in denial base don your personal agenda.

Yes, there is, and all the objective verifiable evidence relates to the nature of our physical existence only, which includes the science of abiogenesis and evolution. There is no objective verifiable evidence for any other 'Source.' Based on faith honestly I believe in God, and God Creates by the natural methods we see in science.

[Anomaly]

This from an earlier post in the thread:

The interaction problem between the soul and the body is that since the soul is not spatially extended, it cannot interact with something that is spatially extended.

The arguments in this thread and most discussions of the soul-body problem start from substance and work 'outward' from there. This places substance as 'king' and a lot of time is spent trying to conform soul to substance, beginning with Descartes' claim for "other" substance.

I start from the confluence of existents in thought: information. Roughly, for a thing to have existence and being it must necessarily possess the ability to 'in-form' a perceiving mind. The mind apprehends both empirical and non-empirical informational representations, thus information is the base of reality. This places the ground of being in the non-empirical realm, which allows a broad library of ontological components (universals, fictions, value, God, etc.). From this perspective, substance is just the most easily accessible form of information to the mind in this life, but at the end of the day, substance is just another mode of information.

As to the location problem--yes, this is a conceptual synthesis, but I feel warrant is preserved by its logical continuity and explanatory strength--the soul may well be a single entity (existing in a logically necessary dual organization) whose structure allows it to conform to its substantive components on every level. Thus, the soul is able to adapt to the body in a reductive sense: for each reduction of empirical substance, i.e., subatomic elements, atoms, molecules, cells, etc., the soul's non-empirical information endues the body's empirical information and partakes in its location. Below is a representation of location interactions, where value is the medium of interaction between the soul's and body's informational structures. (This admittedly crude graphic was produced for a different purpose and is used here to focus only on hypothetical soul-body micro connections.)

Don't want to get too far afield, but the P and Q (particularity and quintessence) within each bit of information is the dual structure that develops our grasp of things and attributes [particulars (P)-properties (Q)] in cognitive functions. Value exchanges from empirical to non-empirical and vise versa within micro components provide the dynamic for producing macro-level normative beliefs, thoughts, motives, etc. From this perspective, although substance is the 'loudest' form of information [captivates the soul's attention while in union with it], it is by no means the primary mode of existence on a cosmic scale. I've heard no logical reason why reality can't actually be composed of a non-empirical "stuff" like information, of which material, empirical substance is merely an inert, temporary 'prison' of sorts within which the soul, whose dynamic and robust information serves a Creator's purpose for each individual soul, uses matter's time-encapsulated locational feature. To claim something doesn't exist because it can't be found in the empirical realm from this point of view proceeds from the desire to climb into the empirical universe and pull the door shut behind so one can blot out the more painful dynamic reality from which matter is formed. Jesus referenced this principle metaphorically in Luke 22:30. Actually, the motivation for desiring this escape can be explained in the very value interactions within information exhibited in the graphic below, but that's a separate issue.

[shunyadragon]

This from an earlier post in the thread:

The arguments in this thread and most discussions of the soul-body problem start from substance and work 'outward' from there. This places substance as 'king' and a lot of time is spent trying to conform soul to substance, beginning with Descartes' claim for "other" substance.

I start from the confluence of existents in thought: information. Roughly, for a thing to have existence and being it must necessarily possess the ability to 'in-form' a perceiving mind. The mind apprehends both empirical and non-empirical informational representations, thus information is the base of reality. This places the ground of being in the non-empirical realm, which allows a broad library of ontological components (universals, fictions, value, God, etc.). From this perspective, substance is just the most easily accessible form of information to the mind in this life, but at the end of the day, substance is just another mode of information.

As to the location problem--yes, this is a conceptual synthesis, but I feel warrant is preserved by its logical continuity and explanatory strength--the soul may well be a single entity (existing in a logically necessary dual organization) whose structure allows it to conform to its substantive components on every level. Thus, the soul is able to adapt to the body in a reductive sense: for each reduction of empirical substance, i.e., subatomic elements, atoms, molecules, cells, etc., the soul's non-empirical information endues the body's empirical information and partakes in its location. Below is a representation of location interactions, where value is the medium of interaction between the soul's and body's informational structures. (This admittedly crude graphic was produced for a different purpose and is used here to focus only on hypothetical soul-body micro connections.)

Don't want to get too far afield, but the P and Q (particularity and quintessence) within each bit of information is the dual structure that develops our grasp of things and attributes [particulars (P)-properties (Q)] in cognitive functions. Value exchanges from empirical to non-empirical and vise versa within micro components provide the dynamic for producing macro-level normative beliefs, thoughts, motives, etc. From this perspective, although substance is the 'loudest' form of information [captivates the soul's attention while in union with it], it is by no means the primary mode of existence on a cosmic scale. I've heard no logical reason why reality can't actually be composed of a non-empirical "stuff" like information, of which material, empirical substance is merely an inert, temporary 'prison' of sorts within which the soul, whose dynamic and robust information serves a Creator's purpose for each individual soul, uses matter's time-encapsulated locational feature. To claim something doesn't exist because it can't be found in the empirical realm from this point of view proceeds from the desire to climb into the empirical universe and pull the door shut behind so one can blot out the more painful dynamic reality from which matter is formed. Jesus referenced this principle metaphorically in Luke 22:30. Actually, the motivation for desiring this escape can be explained in the very value interactions within information exhibited in the graphic below, but that's a separate issue.

Interesting post worthy of further contemplation, but nonetheless their is an adequate scientific explanation for the relationship between the brain and the mind/consciousness problem.

[Anomaly]

...nonetheless their is an adequate scientific explanation for the relationship between the brain and the mind/consciousness problem.

I think "adequate scientific explanation" is in the eye of the beholder, Shunyadragon. There are a lot of folks more intelligent than me--not all of whom are people of faith--who claim that to be honest we have to admit that materialism is not sufficient to adequately explain the mind-body problem. I suspect those who take your position do so on at least as much faith as that necessary to believe in God, especially in light of some of the developments in quantum physics, i.e., the double slit experiments and puzzling behaviors of subatomic particles, which seems to not bode well for the logical materialist assumption of a deterministic universe. And to date, no one has solved Chalmers' 'hard problem' that I'm aware of.

I'm curious. You stated earlier, "There is no objective verifiable evidence for any other 'Source.' Based on faith honestly I believe in God, and God Creates by the natural methods we see in science."

How do you reconcile this approach with a belief in God? I seem to recall that years ago when I first posted here you were listed as a Bahai. I see you now are listed as agnostic. I reject the 'no sufficient evidence' for God as any more than weak evidence...lack of proof, given the limited capacity of the human mind to experience the totality of reality, is close to no proof at all. We're stuck here on a ball of rock adrift in an unimaginably huge universe, struggling to gain knowledge. Your arguments are properly consistent with the agnostic-atheist position, so I'm curious to know where, if empirical evidence reigns as king, you're able to justify a belief in God?

[shunyadragon]

I think "adequate scientific explanation" is in the eye of the beholder, Shunyadragon.

True to a certain extent, but we have no other objective verifiable evidence for another source other than the mind.

There are a lot of folks more intelligent than me--not all of whom are people of faith--who claim that to be honest we have to admit that materialism is not sufficient to adequately explain the mind-body problem.

There are more one-sided stonewall assertions than intelligence here

I suspect those who take your position do so on at least as much faith as that necessary to believe in God, especially in light of some of the developments in quantum physics, i.e., the double slit experiments and puzzling behaviors of subatomic particles, which seems to not bode well for the logical materialist assumption of a deterministic universe. And to date, no one has solved Chalmers' 'hard problem' that I'm aware of.

I have read Chalmers and he is philosopher, and makes his 'hard problem' a philosophical assertion, and and not based anything such as objective verifiable evidence, and to certain extent 'arguing from ignorance,' which cannot be countered by science. I would not mind discussing the 'hard problem,' Chalmers and the science in a little more depth.

I'm curious. You stated earlier, "There is no objective verifiable evidence for any other 'Source.' Based on faith honestly I believe in God, and God Creates by the natural methods we see in science."

How do you reconcile this approach with a belief in God?

No problem God does not leave contradictory conflicting objective verifiable evidence in Creation, therefore Creation is in harmony with science.

I seem to recall that years ago when I first posted here you were listed as a Bahai. I see you now are listed as agnostic. I reject the 'no sufficient evidence' for God as any more than weak evidence...lack of proof, given the limited capacity of the human mind to experience the totality of reality, is close to no proof at all. We're stuck here on a ball of rock adrift in an unimaginably huge universe, struggling to gain knowledge. Your arguments are properly consistent with the agnostic-atheist position, so I'm curious to know where, if empirical evidence reigns as king, you're able to justify a belief in God?

I am a Baha'i and believe in God, the powers to be here at Tweb have made royal decree that I list 'agnostic as my choice of faith and it is not. I am a doubting Thomas and question all beliefs that can be certain from the human perspective.

In reality they are pissed at my arguments.

[Anomaly]

True to a certain extent, but we have no other objective verifiable evidence for another source other than the mind.

But the blind assertion that "objective verifiable evidence" can only be empirical is the primary religious belief of materialism. That's why I wondered where you have room for a belief in God--He stands wholly outside the empirical. I don't know the Bahai beliefs very well, but assume they make concession somewhere for a justifiable non-empirical belief. I think the metaphysic I use, a little of which has been posted here in varying amounts, has a reasonably logical path from non-empirical beginnings to demonstrable appearances of value-bearingness in empirical reality. Every human uses a priori logic to form a worldview.

I can accept that the lives of non-intellectual organisms play out on a purely deterministic stage, which leads me to the conclusion that the only animals who can legitimately believe in a purely materialistic world are those which wholly lack the capacity to do so. Not only do dogs and chimps have no faculty to apprehend the "hard problem" of consciousness, they lack ability for abstraction and moral sense that allows us to not be confined to thinking there is only a material reality.

I have read Chalmers and he is philosopher, and makes his 'hard problem' a philosophical assertion, and and not based anything such as objective verifiable evidence, and to certain extent 'arguing from ignorance,' which cannot be countered by science.

So in your world all philosophical assertions are automatically invalid unless they bow to the tenets of the physical sciences? Have to wonder if you've thought this position through completely. The world generally seems to put significant weight on a host of philosophical ideas, given the amount of resources dedicated to them worldwide. Granted there seems to be a number of philosophies that are hard to take too seriously, but by and large philosophical scholarship seems to be on pretty solid ground.

God does not leave contradictory conflicting objective verifiable evidence in Creation, therefore Creation is in harmony with science.

Agreed. I also hold that moral truth is non-contradictory; the fabric of non-contradiction is truth itself and holds for both factual and moral realms. This means we (Christians) don't yet fully understand the reported contradictions between Old and New Testament teaching, but once we do the contradictions will, in deference to Truth Himself, disappear.

I am a Baha'i and believe in God, the powers to be here at Tweb have made royal decree that I list 'agnostic as my choice of faith and it is not. I am a doubting Thomas and question all beliefs that can be certain from the human perspective.
In reality they are pissed at my arguments.

Understood. I left this site years ago after being told to post "very carefully". I gave no offense other than my universalist theology was disliked. Such is the world of posting on an evangelical-run theology board. One must roll with the punches or go elasewhere. This is why I never post very long or frequently on one board. Don't like having to pussyfoot around to please the status quo.

[shunyadragon]

But the blind assertion that "objective verifiable evidence" can only be empirical is the primary religious belief of materialism. That's why I wondered where you have room for a belief in God--He stands wholly outside the empirical. I don't know the Bahai beliefs very well, but assume they make concession somewhere for a justifiable non-empirical belief. I think the metaphysic I use, a little of which has been posted here in varying amounts, has a reasonably logical path from non-empirical beginnings to demonstrable appearances of value-bearingness in empirical reality. Every human uses a priori logic to form a worldview.

Do no confuse Methodological Naturalism (ME) with Ontological Naturalism, ie materialism. ME cannot be equated with a religious belief. This is an anti-science rhetorical insult. There is no blind assertion concerning "objective verifiable evidence," because it is simply the observed phenomenon t.at can be repeatedly confirmed and predicted.

My belief in God has no problems with the simple natural of our physical existence described by the knowledge of science. It is a window into how God Created our existence.

I can accept that the lives of non-intellectual organisms play out on a purely deterministic stage, which leads me to the conclusion that the only animals who can legitimately believe in a purely materialistic world are those which wholly lack the capacity to do so. Not only do dogs and chimps have no faculty to apprehend the "hard problem" of consciousness, they lack ability for abstraction and moral sense that allows us to not be confined to thinking there is only a material reality.

This is an archaic view science and life that I find unacceptable. Primates, such as chimps have shown moral and intellectual sense including social structure, punishment for violations, and mourning of the death of their relatives, and pretty much all higher animals demonstrate consciousness such as the ability to dream.

Science does very well dealing with the "hard problem of consciousness."

So in your world all philosophical assertions are automatically invalid unless they bow to the tenets of the physical sciences? Have to wonder if you've thought this position through completely. The world generally seems to put significant weight on a host of philosophical ideas, given the amount of resources dedicated to them worldwide. Granted there seems to be a number of philosophies that are hard to take too seriously, but by and large philosophical scholarship seems to be on pretty solid ground.

Animals follow the laws of nature as we do and everything else.

Agreed. I also hold that moral truth is non-contradictory; the fabric of non-contradiction is truth itself and holds for both factual and moral realms. This means we (Christians) don't yet fully understand the reported contradictions between Old and New Testament teaching, but once we do the contradictions will, in deference to Truth Himself, disappear.

There remain many contradictions that you cannot resolve by the wave of a hand, including the lack of historical provenance for the Bible itself.

Understood. I left this site years ago after being told to post "very carefully". I gave no offense other than my universalist theology was disliked. Such is the world of posting on an evangelical-run theology board. One must roll with the punches or go elsewhere. This is why I never post very long or frequently on one board. Don't like having to pussyfoot around to please the status quo.

OK

[Anomaly]

Do no confuse Methodological Naturalism (ME) with Ontological Naturalism, ie materialism. ME cannot be equated with a religious belief. This is an anti-science rhetorical insult. There is no blind assertion concerning "objective verifiable evidence," because it is simply the observed phenomenon t.at can be repeatedly confirmed and predicted.

Methodological naturalism is just the epistemic version of what you call materialism. I see no fundamental difference between the two. Maybe I'm just too unlearned and ignorant to see the difference, or maybe you're pushing a narrative that is more soothing to you.

This is an archaic view science and life that I find unacceptable. Primates, such as chimps have shown moral and intellectual sense including social structure, punishment for violations, and mourning of the death of their relatives, and pretty much all higher animals demonstrate consciousness such as the ability to dream.

Call it what you will, humans--those who have an underlying materialistic bias mostly--have been pushing the 'animals are moral' or 'can abstract' or some such for decades. Regardless, the evidence remains lackluster and controversial. It's easy to project higher intellectual capabilities on simple evaluation and comparison capacities. There's still a lot of material out in the ether that maintain animal behaviors are deterministic, instinct-derived evolutionary responses. Sometimes "archaic" is equal to "truth" you know.

Science does very well dealing with the "hard problem of consciousness.

Okay, but again: for those already convinced consciousness has only a scientific answer. There. We've both thrown unsubstantiated opinions at one another. The message board venue doesn't lend itself easily to in-depth debate, does it?

There remain many contradictions that you cannot resolve by the wave of a hand, including the lack of historical provenance for the Bible itself.

Yes, and for the notion that science has a full explanation for consciousness or that animals are capable of abstraction. So it goes.