A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

I am talking about the the soul and consciousness. Most people I've encountered believe now that these are two separate things, versus the historic belief that the soul was the consciousness, that they were the same thing.

Both are immaterial, but you can talk to and experience one of them and not the other.

[LadyShea]

What are you talking about seebs? I think you misinterpreted my points.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I told you where his proof begins in the first chapter. You have yet to show me that you understand his proof, or to ask me any questions that might help you understand.

And I've repeatedly told you I'm not asking for his proof. For his satisfaction principle to be non-tautological requires that there be some definition of "greater satisfaction" by which this direction can at least in principle be distinguished from other directions independently of what one actually chooses to do. And you are still failing to provide this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I gave the definition of "greater" satisfaction. Greater satisfaction is the movement in the direction of a more satisfying position than what the present position offers. This is not an end point.

And I already addressed this here. I already know what "greater" means. I need a definition of "greater satisfaction", not of "greater" satisfaction. The above defines satisfaction in terms of satisfaction. That is circular, and therefore not what I am asking for.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by seebs

I am not at all sure that this is an accurate description of the history of these thoughts. So far as I can tell, the belief that these were immaterial things rather than material things existed centuries before we had modern neuroscience.

I don't think the goalposts have been moved in general on this one; the distinction between material things and non-material things goes back at least as far as Plato, and probably further.

I believe that one of the signs of the emergence of Human Consciousness was the inclusion of items with the body in the burial of the dead, as if the living believed that the dead person would need these items after death. It has been stated that this was a sign that humans believed that there was more to a human being than just the physical body that could think. So this distinction is considered to be one of the first indications in a belief of something like a soul. That goes back a lot farther than Plato though he may have stated it more clearly.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you talking about seebs? I think you misinterpreted my points.

It's possible.

I understood you to be stating that religious people now generally believe that consciousness is a purely biological thing, and the soul is a separate thing, and that people in the past believed that the soul and the consciousness were the same thing.

[LadyShea]

Yes, my reading and discussions, and experiences during my church days when it was explained to me by my pastor (a Dr. of Theology), have led me to conclude that modern people largely consider the soul and mind (or consciousness) as separate (because the mind is dependent on a living brain and the soul is not) and that past people considered them one and the same.

My conclusion may not be others I see now. I apologize, I kind of thought it was one of those things everyone concluded, because it seems so obvious to me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by seebs

You're getting translation errors; if you take claims from a radically different framework, and translate them, you end up with things which are very different from the claims.

This is a similar situation to someone on the outside of an activity trying to figure it out from observation. An example I have heard.

Imagine watching a sports event where 2 teams are playing a game, that you have never seen before and know nothing about. Now try to figure out the rules without a rule book or someone to explain what is going on. You can only observe the action and do not hear any commentary. Under these circumstances it would be almost impossable to determine what the rules are and in some cases what the gosl of the game is or how to determine the winner. If some rules were not broken during play there would be no indication if that particular action was allowed or not, it may have been within the rules but just not advantagous to the play of the game.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And I've repeatedly told you I'm not asking for his proof. For his satisfaction principle to be non-tautological requires that there be some definition of "greater satisfaction" by which this direction can at least in principle be distinguished from other directions independently of what one actually chooses to do. And you are still failing to provide this.

But his proof based on observation is what makes it non-tautological. There is no way you can distinguish one direction from other directions just by observation. At the point it becomes a first premise, it has to be considered axiomatic. I've come to the sad conclusion that you may not be able to recognize that his proof is valid and sound even after reading it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I gave the definition of "greater" satisfaction. Greater satisfaction is the movement in the direction of a more satisfying position than what the present position offers. This is not an end point.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And I already addressed this here. I already know what "greater" means. I need a definition of "greater satisfaction", not of "greater" satisfaction. The above defines satisfaction in terms of satisfaction. That is circular, and therefore not what I am asking for.

That's all I can offer you unless you read his actual proof. I gave you the paragraph where it begins and I posted the chapter online for your convenience, and all I get is interrogation.

[LadyShea]

I gave you the paragraph where it begins and I posted the chapter online for your convenience, and all I get is interrogation.

You said you wanted people to ask you questions where they were unclear, then you berate them for it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But his proof based on observation is what makes it non-tautological. There is no way you can distinguish one direction from other directions just by observation. At the point it becomes a first premise, it has to be considered axiomatic. I've come to the sad conclusion that you may not be able to recognize that his proof is valid and sound even after reading it.

I didn't say they have to be distinguishable based on observation, but just that there has to be some such distinction in principle between the direction of "greater satisfaction" and the direction one happens to choose. Equating them as an axiomatic first premise is precisely what makes his principle a tautology.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all I can offer you unless you read his actual proof. I gave you the paragraph where it begins and I posted the chapter online for your convenience, and all I get is interrogation.

Asking a perfectly reasonable question is not interrogation. I have read his 'proof'. I am not asking for that. I have asked for a non-circular definition of "greater satisfaction" and you can't provide one.

[LadyShea]

...there has to be some such distinction in principle between the direction of "greater satisfaction" and the direction one happens to choose. Equating them as an axiomatic first premise is precisely what makes his principle a tautology.

This

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said you wanted people to ask you questions where they were unclear, then you berate them for it.

We aren't framing them correctly.

Each question should begin, "Please help me to understand Lessans' brilliance ...".

Further, there should be no follow-up questions. To ask a follow-up question implies that the "explanation" was incomplete, incorrect, unclear, or nonsensical.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say they have to be distinguishable based on observation, but just that there has to be some such distinction in principle between the direction of "greater satisfaction" and the direction one happens to choose. Equating them as an axiomatic first premise is precisely what makes his principle a tautology.

Asking a perfectly reasonable question is not interrogation. I have read his 'proof'. I am not asking for that. I have asked for a non-circular definition of "greater satisfaction" and you can't provide one.

Spacemonkey, it feels like an interrogation. If you read his proof then you would understand that this is not a tautology. The only possible way for me to move forward is to break his proof down, but I have to cut and paste those paragraphs so they can be discussed. I couldn't make any headway with LadyShea because she argued that death is not the opposite of life and that free will and determinism are not opposites. If you're not interested in going through this part with me, that's okay, but I won't be able to proceed.

[LadyShea]

If you read his proof then you would understand that this is not a tautology.

...there has to be some such distinction in principle between the direction of "greater satisfaction" and the direction one happens to choose. Equating them as an axiomatic first premise is precisely what makes his principle a tautology.

Can you explain the distinction between 1. the direction of "greater satisfaction" and 2. what one chooses or not, peacegirl? If you cannot, it is tautological because one simply defines the other.

[LadyShea]

I couldn't make any headway with LadyShea because she argued that death is not the opposite of life and that free will and determinism are not opposites

I didn't argue that they weren't opposites at all, I argued against your opposites being the only possible options. You excluded all the middles, offering a false dichotomy.

Your argument was the same as saying "the only options are black or white", which of course excludes a million shades of gray.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, it feels like an interrogation. If you read his proof then you would understand that this is not a tautology. The only possible way for me to move forward is to break his proof down, but I have to cut and paste those paragraphs so they can be discussed. I couldn't make any headway with LadyShea because she argued that death is not the opposite of life and that free will and determinism are not opposites. If you're not interested in going through this part with me, that's okay, but I won't be able to proceed.

Nonsense. I've read his 'proof' and he does not do what is necessary to show that his principle is not a tautology - he never defines "greater satisfaction". Going through his 'proof' line-by-line won't help, because none of those lines contain the needed definition. Like I said: There has to be some such distinction in principle between the direction of "greater satisfaction" and the direction one happens to choose. Equating them as an axiomatic first premise is precisely what makes his principle a tautology. You can do the line-by-line breakdown thing if you want, but it isn't going to help.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, my reading and discussions, and experiences during my church days when it was explained to me by my pastor (a Dr. of Theology), have led me to conclude that modern people largely consider the soul and mind (or consciousness) as separate (because the mind is dependent on a living brain and the soul is not) and that past people considered them one and the same.

My conclusion may not be others I see now. I apologize, I kind of thought it was one of those things everyone concluded, because it seems so obvious to me.

It's a lot more complicated. So far as I know, at least some people considered them distinct since before written language, and there are still disputes about what is or isn't "the soul". I know Christians who are not dualists at all. I've seen people argue that the apparent dependency on the brain isn't because the brain is the source of consciousness -- it's because the brain is the receptor for consciousness. (So damaging the brain is like damaging an antenna; it doesn't actually damage the signal's source, but it reduces your ability to percieve the signal.) I've seen LOTS of other variants.

I have also seen a ton of atheists who conclude that people used to believe something about souls but don't now due to SCIENCE, and it's pretty much always inaccurate; it's a side-effect of trying to project/translate things from one framework into another, and it's not what seems to actually happen.

Me, I'm largely agnostic on the soul thing, but insofar as I have a current model, I tend to think of it as a thing that is brought into being through interactions between the brain and other things. I have no idea whether it continues without the brain, and figure I'll find out or not later.

[LadyShea]

I see lots of philosophical discussion about the mind and body being separate in the past (lots of smart ancients talked about mind/body dualism). But have not found any such discussion of the soul and mind being separate until modern times..and again those discussions I've had with Christians and new age types, and some stuff I've read, tend to run along the lines of "the mind is dependent on the brain but the soul/spirit is immortal". Sure it's complex, as it should be.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If someone dies, there is no more electrical activity. There are no more inner or outer movements of any kind.

Death is no more a static state than is life. Have you never heard of the process of decomposition?

The Hearse Song - Scary Stories to SING in the...

&feature=related
This post is dedicated to Ymir's blood.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can you explain the distinction between 1. the direction of "greater satisfaction" and 2. what one chooses or not, peacegirl? If you cannot, it is tautological because one simply defines the other.

He defines his terms very clearly and he proves that man's will is not free based on his observations. His first premise: man moves in the direction of greater satisfaction is not the proof. How many times do I have to say this? Furthermore, man cannot have freedom of the will and no freedom of the will, nor can man be alive and dead at the same time. If we can't even agree on this, then there's no point in continuing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He defines his terms very clearly and he proves that man's will is not free based on his observations...

Rubbish. Where does he define the term "greater satisfaction" then? He never defines it at all.

[LadyShea]

He defines his terms very clearly and he proves that man's will is not free based on his observations. His first premise: man moves in the direction of greater satisfaction is not the proof.

Can you explain the distinction between
1. movement in the direction of "greater satisfaction"
and
2. what one chooses

If there is no distinction, then they mean the same thing. If they mean the same thing it is a tautology.

Note I did not ask for his proof, nor did I ask on what he based his conclusions

[seebs]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He defines his terms very clearly

Ahh, I see. So the problem is that I missed the definition, not that there isn't one. Could you point me at where he defines the term "greater satisfaction"?

[Goliath]

"Greater Satisfaction" from a Snickers?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't argue that they weren't opposites at all, I argued against your opposites being the only possible options. You excluded all the middles, offering a false dichotomy.

Your argument was the same as saying "the only options are black or white", which of course excludes a million shades of gray.

There are no shades of gray LadyShea. Man's will is not free (even if you don't believe it); just as there are no shades of gray between death and life.