Recently I have been taking a philosophy of religion class from Nancey Murphy over at Fuller Theological Seminary. Murphy is a well known promoter of a position regarding human composition called “non-reductive physicalism.” According to this position, human persons are holistic physical beings with no immaterial part. In short, Murphy doesn’t believe that we have souls.

In the process of thinking about and studying this issue, I think Murphy may very well be right, but I am not sure yet. Nonetheless, as I think about the issue more and more, I am beginning to wonder just exactly what a soul would be, what it would do and why we need one. I have found that all of my previous beliefs regarding the purpose of the soul are easily accommodated merely by viewing human beings as holistic physical organisms.

For instance, the Christian doctrine of the afterlife has never been conceived of primarily in terms of disembodied souls going to Heaven, but in terms of the resurrection of the body. I used to think, though, that we had to have souls that would survive between the moment of bodily death and resurrection in order to function as the carriers of personal identity. But now I don’t see why that needs to be the case. As long as it is logically possible for God to raise a body from the dead in such a way that it is, in fact, the same body that existed prior to death (and the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body presupposes that it is; I also just recently wrote a paper arguing that it is), and if personal identity is tied in with bodily identity, then to raise the same body is just to raise the same person.

I also thought that we needed souls to have morally responsible action. My thinking was that if we were purely physical beings, then all of our behavior would be a function of the laws of physics. However, as my thinking on the issue of free will, moral responsibility and a more holistic view of causality has developed, I no longer believe that merely saying that we are physical beings means that all of our behavior is causally determined by physical causes which are not identical to ourselves. Chaos theory shows us that some physical systems can influence their own behavior in “top down” ways such that the configuration of the whole system acts on its parts rather than the parts of the system merely acting “bottom up” on the whole. If we are identical to such a holistic physical systems, then we are what causally determines the top-down portion of what causes us to behave in certain ways. I find this to be a way of preserving morally responsible action without the need of appealing to a soul and without generating the problem of interaction between the soul and the body that plagues a dualistic account.

Another thing I thought we needed souls for was as the medium through which we interacted with non-material beings such as God or even angels and demons. But, really, appealing to the soul for this just pushes the interaction problem back one step. How do our souls interact with our bodies? My own tentative view in the past was that our souls interacted with our bodies via influencing the outcome of physically undetermined quantum events in our brains. But, why not just cut out the middle man? Why not just take whatever account we have of how the soul interacts with the body and just apply it directly to the interaction of God, angles and demons with our bodies?

The final issue is whether the Bible teaches that we have souls. This is a question that is still out for me. If the Bible does teach it, then I will believe it. But, whether the Old Testament or the New Testament actually teaches a dualistic account of human nature has been much in dispute in Biblical scholarship these days. And I have seen strong arguments on both sides.

Thoughts?

In Christ,
Kenny

For What It May Be Worth

Soul is a term rarely used with precise definition in philosophy, religion, or common life. It is generally regarded as descriptive of an entity related to but distinguishable from the body--the spiritual part of human beings that animates their physical existence and survives death.

Primitive religions tend to associate the soul with the vital force in humans and often identify it with particular parts or functions of the body (the heart or kidneys, the breath or pulse). Other religions show traces of such animistic ideas. In Hinduism, the Atman (originally meaning "breath") is the individual factor that is indestructible and that after death is reborn in another existence. But Atman is identified with Brahman, the Source of all things to which the soul ultimately returns when it ceases to have a separate existence. (Buddhism, on the other hand, repudiates the notion of Atman, positing the theory of Anatta, nonself.) Early Jewish thought did not conceive the soul as existing apart from the body except in the shadowy realm of departed spirits (Sheol). Greek and especially Platonic thought divided humans into two parts: body and soul. The soul, often referred to as the psyche, was considered both preexistent and immortal.

The early Christian church lived under the influence of Greek ideas about the body and soul, although biblical teachings about Resurrection were superimposed on them. Throughout the history of the Christian church, there has been no clearly defined and universally accepted metaphysical conception of the soul. Nevertheless, Christian theology and worship have adhered firmly to the conviction of personal survival after death rooted in belief in the love of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.


Philosophy has long been preoccupied with speculation about the existence and nature of the soul and its relationship to the body. In the 20th century many philosophers have argued, following William James, that the concept of the soul is neither verifiable nor necessary to an understanding of humankind's mode of existence in the world.

SOURCE

Hmm, I dunno, but I don't personally think that we can be described as purely physical beings, because conscious experience is something on a different sort of level from mere physical being. Perhaps that can be incorporated into a form of physicalism, but I'm not sure.

The only thing that I can give you is Scripture. Scripture clearly teaches that physical death involves no loss of our immaterial consciousness:

Revelation 6:9

When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained;

Scripture also tells us that there is a separation of soul and body at death:
James 2:26

For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

It teaches us that the soul of the redeemed passes immediately ino the presence of Christ:

Luke 23:43

And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.'

2 Cor. 5:8

we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.

Phil. 1:23

But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better;

Scripture also teaches that the separation will continue until the Rapture:

1 Thess. 4:13-17:

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

The Rapture initiates the FIRST resurrection:

Rev. 20:4-6:

Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.
Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

At this first resurrection, the souls and bodies of the redeemed will be glorified forever with our Lord, and this means that our old bodies will not be used, but a new one will be given to us:

1 Cor. 15:35-44, and 50-54:

But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?"
You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies;
and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.
But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.
All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another.
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."

"Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.
But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory."

Phil 3:21:

Who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

Until that time, the souls of the redeemed in Christ remain in fellowship with the Lord -- 2 Cor. 5:8, above.

Scripture teaches that the souls of the unsaved at death are kept under punishment until the SECOND resurrection:

Luke 16:19-26:

Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day.
And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores,
and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.
Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.
In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried out and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame."
But Abraham said, "Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.
And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us. "

Rev. 20:13-15:

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

At this time the soul and the resurrection body will be united:

John 5:28-29:

Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

They will then appear at the Great White Throne judgment:

Rev.20:11-15:

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.
And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

They will be cast into hell, the lake of fire:

Matt. 25:41-46

Then He will also say to those on His left, "Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me."
Then they themselves also will answer, "Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?"
Then He will answer them, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me."
These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

They shall be cut off from the presence and life of God forever:

Daniel 12:2:

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.

Matt. 25:41-46: (see above)

2 Thess. 1:7-9:

and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire,
dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.

Now, my question for your prof is, what does she do with all these verses? And, what does she do with the state of the "consciousness" between death and whenever she claims presence with the Lord?

Originally posted by markporter

Hmm, I dunno, but I don't personally think that we can be described as purely physical beings, because conscious experience is something on a different sort of level from mere physical being. Perhaps that can be incorporated into a form of physicalism, but I'm not sure.

I think a non-reductive sort of physical can incorporate a consciousness that exudes qualities over and above what is found at lower levels of physical complexity. The whole (pun intended) idea behind non-reductionistic thinking is that many sorts of physical systems have properties which only emerge at a sufficiently complex level of organization and interrelatedness and which do not reduce to properties held by the parts of the system when they appear outside of such organization. Consciousness might be one of these sorts of things.

I think we need to be careful also about how we think about matter. Enlightenment atomism has predisposed us to think that every property a material object has is somehow mathematically quantifiable. But, clearly there are aspects of the world that are qualitative and not subject to mathematical quantification. For example, a mathematical equation may describe the range of wavelengths that human beings associate with the color blue, but no mathematical equation can describe “blueness” or what it is like to experience blue. So, if we think of matter as only having quantitative properties, that predisposes us to dualism as a way to account for the qualitative aspects of the world. But, why assume that matter only has quantitative properties in the first place? That seems like a rather arbitrary assumption.

In Christ,
Kenny

High Mossrose,

Thanks for your response. I think there are two issues here. First, do these verses really teach the doctrine of the intermediate state? Second, if they do, does the doctrine of an intermediate state require dualism?

As to the second question, I’m not so sure it does. This solution won’t be acceptable to people who hold to a presentist, or A theory of time (and that would include all open theists), but it will work on an eternalist or B theory of time. I just recently talked this over with my wife who in many ways is still grieving over the recent loss of her grandmother, in fact. She was concerned about physicalism because it would seem to imply that her grandmother no longer exists. We were discussing this issue as we were talking about a recent paper I wrote on pre and post resurrection bodily identity.

In that paper I made use insights from certain interpretations of Einstein’s theory of relativity which conceives of time as another dimension, analogous to a dimension of space and as objects being not merely spatially extended in three dimensions but also extended in time in a four-dimensional space-time geometry (for those interested in more technical terms, I adopted a perdurantist view of temporal persistence rather than an endurantist one – as I used to be an endurantist and have defended that view elsewhere on this board, this is a shift in opinion for me, but the ability of perdurantism to handle various identity paradoxes, like the Ship of Theseus paradox, that seem intractable on endurantism won me over). I pointed out that if such a view of time is right, then her grandmother does exist, but she exists in a different region of space-time than we do in the present, one that has already undergone eschatological transformation. From her grandmother’s perspective, she was instantaneously transported to this region at the moment of her death. I also suggested that once she crossed over the bridge from this region of space-time to that one, the very concept of linear time, or at least the limitations of it might have become less meaningful to her -- both because linear time may be less meaningful in general in that region and because her capacities and perspectives have broadened. Thus, there may be some ways in which she is able to look back on us as if she were in our present and in some ways, she may really be in our present. Relativity theory strongly suggests that our very concept of simultaneity is a flexible one and one that could be manipulated in interesting ways if we were not bound by the limitations of the speed of light. And, someone who thinks that the realm that disembodied souls go to is outside of our space-time continuum will have to hold something similar about how these souls are related back to our present.

So perhaps Scriptural passages which are taken to suggest an intermediate state are really just reflecting the manner in which time in the post-eschatological state works differently than our more limited linear time does. Perhaps, even, who we are in that state works backwards and influences who we are here and now. Admittedly, all this is very speculative, but when it comes to these matters, that’s all our thinking can be, outside of the scarce details that Scripture gives us. Most of it is probably beyond our capacities to even imagine. But, do remember, Jewish dualistic thinking differed from Greek dualistic thinking in that Jewish dualism was primarily temporal and not spatial (a matter of the now verses the then rather than the below verses the above). Nevertheless, what is to come influences what is now. This is the “already but not yet tension” we find in Scripture. I think the above model might do more justice to that Jewish view.

Now, as far as the verses are concerned:

Revelation 6:9

First of all, this is apocalyptic literature, loaded with all sorts of symbolism and other forms of non-literal description. Any attempt to read a theology of heaven directly off of John’s symbolic visions here is probably not advisable. Also note that the martyrs in this passage are pictured as being embodied and not as disembodied spirits. Is this, perhaps, an instance of the future eschatological realm impacting on the present? Furthermore, does the fact that these “souls” (Grk: psuchas, lives, selves) are “under the alter” mean that they are really present there in an intermediate state or are they simply remembered and noticed by God. And just exactly how are they giving testimony and how are they petitioning before God. Is this them literally existing in an intermediate state speaking words or is it their faithful example and their blood “crying out” as Abel’s did from the ground. Given the genre of Revelation, I don’t think it is clear cut one way or the other.


James 2:26

Well the word ‘sprit’ (‘pnuema’) can just mean something like ‘life’ or even ‘breath.’ So ‘Just as the body with out life is dead’ or ‘Just as the body without breath is dead’ are two other ways to translate this verse. There’s not necessarily any inherent dualism here.


Luke 23: 43

There were no commas in the original manuscripts. Where should the comma go here? Is it ‘Truly I say to you, today…” or is it “Truly I say to you today, …”?


2 Corinthians 5:8

Is Paul contrasting embodied existence with disembodied existence here or is he merely contrasting our being in the “earthly tent” (i.e. our body in its pre-resurrected state) with our being clothed in our “heavenly dwelling” (i.e. our transformed and glorified resurrected body) which, from the perspective of the person who dies, is instantaneously received at the moment of death?


Philippians 1:23

Same question as above.

At this first resurrection, the souls and bodies of the redeemed will be glorified forever with our Lord, and this means that our old bodies will not be used, but a new one will be given to us:

1 Cor. 15:35-44, and 50-54:

I don’t think this is quite the orthodox view. Certainly our new bodies will be transformed bodies and in that sense they will not be the same as our bodies are now (that is, they will be different types of bodies), but there will also be continuity with these bodies and our old bodies just as Christ’s resurrected body was continuous with his body that was buried (hence the empty tomb and the scars on his hands and feet). Paul’s metaphorical way of describing this in I Corinthians is that of a plant growing up out of a seed – difference with continuity.


Luke 16:19-26

This is a parable of Jesus that does seem to presuppose some Jewish views of an intermediary state that were extant at Jesus’ time. The pertinent question is, though, did Jesus intend to endorse the particular view presupposed by this parable or was this particular view just a narrative device that Jesus adapted for the purpose of telling the story. Just having this parable alone without any explicit teaching from Jesus on the subject makes it difficult to tell. Note, though, how, even in this parable, those in the afterlife are pictured as living in an embodied existence. There’s no clear notion here of a disembodied intermediate state.

As for the rest of the verses, I think they fit quite easily into a physicallist view since most of them are about the resurrection as the final hope (or the occasion of the final judgment), though I disagree with the premillinial sequence into which you have arranged them.

In Christ,
Kenny

The first observation concerning all those posts preceeding this response is that there has been no hypothesis, no idea of what is a "soul." None. None beyond the earliest of animistic ideas.

Even the long list of bible verses does little in the way of identifying the essence of the soul to which it refers. The bible does tell us things about how the soul is involved, is to be involved, in certain coming events. In themselves, they, too, need explanation (if one is to maintain a rational footing and underdtanding of the world).

Causality may be attacked philosophically and theologically, but beyond the long tail of religion and religious invention throughout the ages, Causality explains a world as cause and effect for most everyone. Modern Faith is hard to duscern from ancient animism.

Obviously, what would be useful is a comprehensive postulate that could rationally represent a foundation for (1) the legitimacy of such an entity as soul, and (2) the reasonableness of the seemingly irrational events described in the bible concern the soul.

This is of grave importance. That is, important that some such idea occur to us.

First, if it be true, that there is a rational and reasonable understanding of the concept, soul, then those people who now can not give serious regard for the warnings and encouragements of scripture may pause to reconsider.

Second, those people who in faith already recognize that some such mechanism does exist will be enabled by a confirming, tangible definition of this idea to better understand the relationships. That is, between their behaviors during their lifetime and the impact upon this soul's immortality.

True so far?

A postulate would be very useful. One that does not require both faith in scripture and faith in the soul to which scripture is devoted.

Such a postulate would need to satisfy the secular community in regard to its absence of the animism that hypothesizes spirits and personifable external forces of darkness.

Yet, every verse of scripture would demand a compatibility with that proposed idea for our religious community.

Is anyone interested in such an idea?
Consider this:
The mind is resurrected along with the brain that produced it. Its genetic. Much as our DNA is the seed from which the body is passed forward into future generations, an unconscious mind is resurrected, too.

We bloom again, we have been blooming again and again for some time, but the Unconscious has guardedly protected us from "knowing." For now, we can not remember past life experiences we "enjoyed." Hence, we have been protected from judging ourselves in former life experiences.

This unconsciousness accounts for 90 % of the genetic material in our cells for which science presently has no idea concerning its use. They have no idea of just what it does in the recreation of a new "human" (soul). I propose it passes on memory.

Consider these verses before we check them al:

Gen. 1:26 And The Universal Force, the macrocosmos, said, Let the
Natural Laws make man's mind, a microcosmos, in our image, after our
orderly organization: and let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen. 1:27 So The Universal Force created an abstract mind in his own
image, enabled to image The Universal Force, abstractly and
mathematically, so created The Universal Force him; male and female created he them.

Originally posted by kofh2u

We bloom again, we have been blooming again and again for some time, but the Unconscious has guardedly protected us from "knowing." For now, we can not remember past life experiences we "enjoyed." Hence, we have been protected from judging ourselves in former life experiences.

This unconsciousness accounts for 90 % of the genetic material in our cells for which science presently has no idea concerning its use. They have no idea of just what it does in the recreation of a new "human" (soul). I propose it passes on memory.

Consider these verses before we check them al:

Gen. 1:26 And The Universal Force, the macrocosmos, said, Let the
Natural Laws make man's mind, a microcosmos, in our image, after our
orderly organization: and let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen. 1:27 So The Universal Force created an abstract mind in his own
image, enabled to image The Universal Force, abstractly and
mathematically, so created The Universal Force him; male and female created he them.

Well, you are certainly entilted to that opinion, but that does not seem to be an orthodox Christian view (if I really understand what you are saying -- I am not sure I do), and orthodox Christianity is the parameter I want this discussion to stay in.

Originally posted by Kenny

Recently I have been taking a philosophy of religion class from Nancey Murphy over at Fuller Theological Seminary. Murphy is a well known promoter of a position regarding human composition called “non-reductive physicalism.” According to this position, human persons are holistic physical beings with no immaterial part. In short, Murphy doesn’t believe that we have souls.

Are you sure this isn't going to leave you with a model of a human being as little more than a very complex state machine ?

I don't see how you can avoid a human being becoming such a thing.

It seems to explain consciousness away.

I know you were saying it didn't, but how does this avoid making consciousness into little more than an after thought similar to the sort of thing consciousness becomes in epiphenomenonalism ?

There doesn't seem to be anything in the body to make a decision. Each "decision" becomes the end point in a long chain of cause effect relationships.

Appeals to Chaos theory wont solve that problem, becasue IIRC chaos theory is entirely deterministic, although I will admit it has been a while since I looked at it and it was principally in the area of weather prediction.

Certianly if I do remember rightly, then an appeal to chaos theory to explain consciousness reduces it to an entirely deterministic process that is just unpredictable due to the impossibility of getting the initial predictions correct.

And besides, how does this model take into account "blueness" and other qualia without explaining then away.

Jason

Jason

When I was about three years old, I had a little blue suitcase in which I used to keep toys. When my mom taught me "Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep," I thought it meant I was praying that I could take that little blue suitcase with me if I died.

-Neil

p.s. Consider the above a koan of sorts...

Originally posted by jason

Are you sure this isn't going to leave you with a model of a human being as little more than a very complex state machine?

Well, what do you mean by a “machine.” If you mean a physical construction that lacks any sort of self-transcendence or one that operates in accordance with purely algorithmic processes, then I don’t think non-reductive physicalism does this. Holistic causality involves the entire system feeding back into the behavior of its parts, and not all physical processes operate in accordance with algorithmic processes.

It seems to explain consciousness away.

Does “explain” equate to “explain away?”

I know you were saying it didn't, but how does this avoid making consciousness into little more than an after thought similar to the sort of thing consciousness becomes in epiphenomenonalism?

Not really. According to non-reductive physicalism, consciousness would arise as a higher order level of the system’s functioning that in turn exerts causal influences on the lower levels. It doesn’t merely “ride on top” of the lower level functions without influencing them as is the case in epiphenomenonalism.

There doesn't seem to be anything in the body to make a decision.

That very language seems to presuppose dualism. The person is not “in” the body making the decision, but, rather, the person is the body. The body/person makes the decision through top-down causal acts.

Each "decision" becomes the end point in a long chain of cause effect relationships.

This seems to presuppose causal reductionism, the idea that everything that happens on higher orders of complexity is caused by what happens on the lower levels. We now know, empirically, that this is false. It ignores the fact that many complex physical systems exhibit non-linear feedback loops such that the whole acts causally on the parts.

Appeals to Chaos theory wont solve that problem, becasue IIRC chaos theory is entirely deterministic, although I will admit it has been a while since I looked at it and it was principally in the area of weather prediction.

Chaos theory is deterministic, but not causally reductionistic. The higher order behaviors of a choatic system are (in principle) described by deterministic functions, but the functions which describe that behavior can only do so by taking into account all the non-linear feedback loops exhibited by the system itself. Since I am a Calvinist and a compatibilist, this is exactly the result I would expect and want. I don’t know if physicalism can accommodate an indeterminist notion of free will, but maybe it can. There is good evidence that there are physical processes whose outcomes are not physically determined (e.g. QM measurement events). Perhaps these factor into human decision making somehow, though I do not see how such decisions could be distinguished from random physical events. But, then again, I’ve never been able to figure out how LFW distinguishes human decisions from random events anyway. Philosophically, I don’t believe it can, but if it can then I don’t see why the indeterminism has to adhere in something non-physical as opposed to something physical.

Certianly if I do remember rightly, then an appeal to chaos theory to explain consciousness reduces it to an entirely deterministic process that is just unpredictable due to the impossibility of getting the initial predictions correct.

As a compatibilist, ontological indeterminism is not something I need to build in to my account of human decision making, but I think one might be able to be a physicalist who combines QM and chaos theory in such a way that allows for indeterminism.

And besides, how does this model take into account "blueness" and other qualia without explaining then away.

Because these arise from genuine qualities that adhere in matter, even though these qualities are not subject to quantitative description. It seems an unwarranted assumption to suppose that the only qualities which are material are those which are quantifiable.


In Christ,
Kenny

Originally posted by Kenny

Well, what do you mean by a “machine.” If you mean a physical construction that lacks any sort of self-transcendence or one that operates in accordance with purely algorithmic processes, then I don’t think non-reductive physicalism does this. Holistic causality involves the entire system feeding back into the behavior of its parts, and not all physical processes operate in accordance with algorithmic processes.

Which ones don't ? I am not sure you are going to be able to escape the reductionism you are seeking to avoid.

Does “explain” equate to “explain away?”

It depends. Look at something like Dennets work, it is nonsense because he solves the problem of qualia by concluding they don't really exist.

Such a solution is not a solution at all.

Not really. According to non-reductive physicalism, consciousness would arise as a higher order level of the system’s functioning that in turn exerts causal influences on the lower levels. It doesn’t merely “ride on top” of the lower level functions without influencing them as is the case in epiphenomenonalism.

But how does it avoid this ?

This seems to presuppose causal reductionism, the idea that everything that happens on higher orders of complexity is caused by what happens on the lower levels. We now know, empirically, that this is false. It ignores the fact that many complex physical systems exhibit non-linear feedback loops such that the whole acts causally on the parts.

Could you provide some examples of something that is not explainable as the sum of its parts interacting. I can't think of any. Perhaps an example would help.

Chaos theory is deterministic, but not causally reductionistic. The higher order behaviors of a choatic system are (in principle) described by deterministic functions, but the functions which describe that behavior can only do so by taking into account all the non-linear feedback loops exhibited by the system itself.

How does non-lineraity solve your problem ? Even a non-linear algorithim is still and algorithim.

There is good evidence that there are physical processes whose outcomes are not physically determined (e.g. QM measurement events). Perhaps these factor into human decision making somehow, though I do not see how such decisions could be distinguished from random physical events.

I don't think adding randomness into the mix solves the problem. If I behave in a random fashion I am still not making a decision.

Perhaps some examples will clear up my confusion and help us to get closer to the problem at hand.

Jason

I responded to your quiry, "Thoughts."

Sorry. I will refrain from comment as I await the "Orthox Christian" (?) definition of eternal life where there will be no death and we wherein we shall all see his face.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/ima...t-top-left.gif Quote: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/ima...-top-right.gif

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/ima...p-right-10.gif




And besides, how does this model take into account "blueness" and other qualia without explaining then away.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/ima...t-bot-left.gif
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/ima...-bot-right.gif

Because these arise from genuine qualities that adhere in matter, even though these qualities are not subject to quantitative description. It seems an unwarranted assumption to suppose that the only qualities which are material are those which are quantifiable.

That means that the matter has these qualities in itself, but surely that doesn't help to explain why we as a conscious being can experience what it is like to perceive these qualities? (I wouldn't argue for example that my computer perceives what it is like for me to be typing these words, merely because there are certain qualia associated with what I am doing)

Originally posted by jason

Which ones don't ? I am not sure you are going to be able to escape the reductionism you are seeking to avoid.

Well, by non-algorithmic, I am refering to processes that cannot be modeled by a series of step by step instructions, that is processes that could not be exactly simulated on a digital computer. There are quite a few processes in nature like that. The thing that most immediately popped in my brain was the three body gravity problem. If you have three bodies in orbit around each other, the differential equation you get has no solution. You can still use algorithmic methods to approximate the behavior of such a system to any arbitrary degree of accuracy, but you cannot exactly simulate the behavior of such a system with any sort of step by step procedure. That’s why I have my doubts about artificially intelligent programs. I suspect that even if some forms of consciousness can arise out of physical processes, such consciousness probably depends on physical processes that are non-algorithmic. So if we ever do create artificial intelligence, I think it will primarily be about getting together the right sort of hardware and not the right sort of software.

As far as causally non-reductionistic physical systems are concerned, I would say those are the norm in nature. Any system where the whole feeds back into the behavior of the parts is going to exhibit non-reductionistic causal features. This would included systems like the three body gravitational system described above, the rise and fall of animal populations, the weather, any sufficiently complex biological organism, etc.

These are all “non-linear” systems. Sorry if what follows seems pedantic. I don’t know what your background is, but even if this is review for you, I’m sure it is helpful to others. In mathematics, a function is linear if:

1.) f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y)
2.) f(a*x) = a*f(x)

So, basically, a function is linear if the function that includes all the variables together can be broken down into functions of each of the variables in isolation. Non-linear functions, by contrast, exhibit interaction terms. One of the most basic examples of a non-linear function would be f(x) = x^2. If we try to apply the first criterion for a linear function above, we get f(x+y) = x^2 + 2xy + y^2 = f(x) + f(y) + 2xy. So, as you can see, we do get the original function back for each variable when we plug in x and y, but we also get the 2xy term attached to the end. The 2xy term is an “interaction” term. This term irreducibly makes reference to both variables together. Consequently, there’s no way to describe the functional behavior of these variables together in terms of functions that describe them in isolation from each other.

I would say that any system whose functional behavior is described by interaction terms which include all the variables that comprise the system being described exhibits non-causally reductionistic behavior. In such a system, it is impossible to explain how any of the parts of the system are behaving without making reference to the whole system itself. The entire system, then, is something that exerts causal influences (via the interaction terms which make reference to the whole system) over and upon all of its parts.

It depends. Look at something like Dennets work, it is nonsense because he solves the problem of qualia by concluding they don't really exist.

I’m not denying that they exist. I’m just wondering why the necessarily have to be considered immaterial.

But how does it avoid this?

I suppose, in order to really answer this question, I would have to have a clear idea of how exactly it supposedly falls into this before I can explain how to avoid it. If consciousness adheres in a higher order physical process that does not simply reduce to the processes happening on lower levels and if the higher order process that consciousness adheres in exerts top-down causal influences on the lower levels, then where does this amount to epiphenomenalism exactly? On this view, consciousness is something with a reality over and above the lower levels of the system and something which causally affects the lower levels of the system.

How does non-lineraity solve your problem ? Even a non-linear algorithim is still and algorithim.

That’s true, there can be non-linear algorithms, but there are types of equations whose behavior is neither. I suspect that the behavior of human beings is both non-linear and non-algorithmic.

I don't think adding randomness into the mix solves the problem. If I behave in a random fashion I am still not making a decision.

I leave that problem to LFWers to resolve. Philosophically, I’ve never seen any convincing way for LFWers to distinguish between indeterminately free decisions and random acts of will. If there is some way to meaningfully distinguish these things, then I fail to say why the indeterminate process must adhere in something non-physical as opposed to something physical. Perhaps, if LFW is right, the will resides in some sort of QM process in the brain which is conditioned, but undetermined by all the other factors that comprise the person. As for myself, I don’t introduce randomness into the decision making process. As a compatibilist, I’m perfectly comfortable with determinism so long as it’s a non-reductionsitic sort of determinism.

In Christ,
Kenny

Originally posted by kofh2u

I responded to your quiry, "Thoughts."

Sorry. I will refrain from comment as I await the "Orthox Christian" (?) definition of eternal life where there will be no death and we wherein we shall all see his face.

No problem; perhaps I should have been more clear about the type of feedback I am looking for. Non-orthodox (small 'o') Christians or just plain non-Christians are welcome to comment so long as they are willing to stay within the parameters of what a physicalist view of the person would mean for orthodox Christianity and whether or not such is really required for orthodox Christianity.

In Christ,
Kenny