The human soul

Adder wrote: So we have a nose with its sensory apparatus, a nervous system for organization and propagation, and a brain for processing and cognition - I think we all get that. The more uniquely human part in the topic is the cognition.

Oh I forgot to add, its not only the cognition of course but what the process itself might inform or be experienced as to inform of a soul. The topic seems quite unrelated to the physical sciences to me, unless someone has something to inform the topic from them.... and more a psychological one IMO and therefore any theories should be considered in those terms rather then reduced to irrelevant categories of related yet distant physical phenomena as a lack of basis. Its how I approach it anyway. There is just basically no physical science involvement in this topic at all in my experience, or at least very hard and rare, but of course I am interested in ideas that there might be.

Well, we know that there is a physical component to pretty much every step of what you call cognition, and outside of philosophical arguments and intuitions we have nothing to indicate that there is any further component to it at all. This is not to say that to model it more abstractly can't be useful, but if we do so, then we must appreciate that, too; recognize, that an abstract modeling is just that and beyond granting some more intuitive grasp of the underlying natural processes, it cannot serve to justify anything we didn't observe in the first place.
In other words, while at this point very little insight will come from reconstructing all of psychology starting with the basics of chemistry, that in itself is no reason to say that psychology seeks to describe something that is technically anything more than that. If we want to assert a component to our beings that goes beyond what we already know are components, we are inevitably faced with the question of whether it interacts with our physical being in some identifiable way or not. What test can you perform on yourself that would indicate to you that you have this "human part" or "cognition" (or indeed soul) that a machine built to emulate your behaviour would fail? What test would you perform on me and my robot clone to tell us apart? And if we turn out to be indistinguishable, then what would you mean were you to say that we are different? If A - B = 0, is true, then how can A = B be false?

You tell me, but I think that feels more on topic. Otherwise efforts to try to prove it doesn't exist almost seems to be an effort to explain how offtopic it is to do so
As of course proof is in the hands of those who claim something.... which no-one is really trying to do, but rather discuss ideas about how it might work if it did - which is why for non-physical phenomena using the absence of physical metrics is wholly irrelevant and offtopic. And to clarify, non-physical phenomena can be physical phenomena outside our capacity to measure its physical attributes..... and for us this is only possible through the body and mind. We can measure the activity of the brain but we cannot measure the activity of the mind, yet we all experience it everyday. We might be able to one day, but that is not now. The mind seems to be a partial representation of the brain activity which serves as a construct for our cognition which limited awareness is part of. Modelling the mind is one of my favorite things to think about but all I've really got to explore it is my own mind, relevant scientific findings and other peoples ideas.

I don’t mind the “bickering” at all. Passionate posting is something every OP (which I assume stands for outstanding poster) wishes for, and it has given me a lot to think about.

I definitely can see the point Adder makes regarding the possibility of phenomena being outside our range of perception (like being within WiFi range with no radio devices to detect or connect to it). But then that does take me back to Gisteron and Kyrin’s earlier argument, and I am paraphrasing based on my understanding of what they typed: if the soul is something we have no evidence or experience of interacting with (no distinctly identifiable phenomena that can be linked to it), then even if it DID exist, what difference would it make to say it does or doesn’t? Is there anything else in the world for which this applies? Is there anything we have no experience of and is yet found real through other means?

I'd imagine purely hypothetical constructs would need some association to either subjective experience or objective reality, else they'd be equivalent to fiction. Not to suggest that fiction is not a powerful tool in areas of motivation, focus, learning etc. But I know I interact with what I'd associate with the soul many times a day, but the existence/experience of it is all within the subjective reality of my mind regardless of whether it relates to the objective reality or not. They 'seem' to be mostly delinked phenomena like how an engine is not directly connected to the driving wheels of a car, the source of power in the engine has to be transformed into a suitable force to drive the vehicle. So the metaphor might be most people drive around with their clutch mostly in, burning up the plates.

Adder wrote: I'd imagine purely hypothetical constructs would need some association to either subjective experience or objective reality, else they'd be equivalent to fiction. Not to suggest that fiction is not a powerful tool in areas of motivation, focus, learning etc. But I know I interact with what I'd associate with the soul many times a day, but the existence/experience of it is all within the subjective reality of my mind regardless of whether it relates to the objective reality or not. They 'seem' to be mostly delinked phenomena like how an engine is not directly connected to the driving wheels of a car, the source of power in the engine has to be transformed into a suitable force to drive the vehicle. So the metaphor might be most people drive around with their clutch mostly in, burning up the plates.

This makes absolutely no sense. In order for any construct to be real it must have a component in experience AND in reality, not one or the other. This is why the number 2 is not real. It is a mental construct only that represents a logical aspect of reality but it is not reality itself. It is the map only but not the physical landscape. However it can be mapped to and thus represent reality conceptually.

You then go on to claim that an engine is not directly connected to the wheels of a car and then proceed to debunk that notion by describing the actual working function of an internal combustion engine and how it powers a drive train that in turn rotates the wheels. Direct connection through well understood mechanical function.

This relegates any assertions here about your interactions with "soul" as, at best, a metaphorical map of your experience of reality. But it goes no further than that because it cant even be mapped to a corporeal function such as the number 2 or the function of the engine in relation to the wheels. This dooms it to the realm of wishful thinking, namely fantasy.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: I'd imagine purely hypothetical constructs would need some association to either subjective experience or objective reality, else they'd be equivalent to fiction.......

This makes absolutely no sense. In order for any construct to be real it must have a component in experience AND in reality, not one or the other. This is why the number 2 is not real. It is a mental construct only that represents a logical aspect of reality but it is not reality itself. It is the map only but not the physical landscape. However it can be mapped to and thus represent reality conceptually.

Your definition of 'real' here seems to be what I'm calling objective reality. For the sake of discussion terms need to be associated to their actions in some framework else no communication can actually take place and instead people just make familiar noises at each other.... and angry or bored when no progress occurs.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: You then go on to claim that an engine is not directly connected to the wheels of a car and then proceed to debunk that notion by describing the actual working function of an internal combustion engine and how it powers a drive train that in turn rotates the wheels. Direct connection through well understood mechanical function.

You didn't get the scope of the metaphor and seemingly only saw something which fitted your subjective bias. I was talking about my experience of the interaction between the subjective experience and objective reality through the constructs of the mind.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: This relegates any assertions here about your interactions with "soul" as, at best, a metaphorical map of your experience of reality.

How so? Why metaphorical, its experiential from where I'm sitting.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: But it goes no further than that because it cant even be mapped to a corporeal function such as the number 2 or the function of the engine in relation to the wheels. This dooms it to the realm of wishful thinking, namely fantasy.

It cannot be mapped yet, but that is outside of my control and does not disprove its existence within my subjective reality... only does not prove it in objective reality. It seems to be that you might be conflating two concepts, leading to incorrectly trying to build a picture, and so IMO your conclusion is flawed.

@adder, sure reality=objective reality.

As for your subjective experience of the engine being disconnected from the wheel that is what is flawed. I can prove the function of the wheel is in direct reaction to the function of the engine regardless of your "experience" of it so your experience is irrelevant to its provable corporeal function.

Your experience of soul is also irrelevant as experiential because it has no demonstrable component in reality. This is no different than the skitzophrenic that is hospitalized for hearing voices. They claim to have a real experiential happening but in reality it is a delusion created by the mind alone.

Your assertion that it can not be mapped "yet" is irrelevant. If you cant show mapping, the claim you make must be rejected for lack of evidence. It does not disprove your experience of it but it also does not prove your experience of it is in any way valid. There are a myriad of explanations for your experience of the soul that we both know and maybe dont know. However your assertion that your experience can only be soul as you describe without evidence in reality to back it up is just assertion and a form of argument from ignorance.

Map that shit and then we can talk. Until then it's just God of the gaps baby!

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: As for your subjective experience of the engine being disconnected from the wheel that is what is flawed. I can prove the function of the wheel is in direct reaction to the function of the engine regardless of your "experience" of it so your experience is irrelevant to its provable corporeal function.

Nah, the drive power in the metaphor was the experience not its existence. Your still conflating the two things. The metaphor being as explained was more about the decoupling of engine to wheels via a clutch assembly but also the transformation in its rotational speed and angular alignment through gearing in the gearbox and differential.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Your experience of soul is also irrelevant as experiential because it has no demonstrable component in reality. This is no different than the skitzophrenic that is hospitalized for hearing voices. They claim to have a real experiential happening but in reality it is a delusion created by the mind alone.

Your still conflating subjective reality and objective reality, or misrepresenting my comment about subjective reality as one about objective reality.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Your assertion that it can not be mapped "yet" is irrelevant. If you cant show mapping, the claim you make must be rejected for lack of evidence.

Your still conflating subjective reality and objective reality, or misrepresenting my comment about subjective reality as one about objective reality.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: It does not disprove your experience of it but it also does not prove your experience of it is in any way valid.

Let me guess, you mean valid in the context of objective reality

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: There are a myriad of explanations for your experience of the soul that we both know and maybe dont know. However your assertion that your experience can only be soul as you describe without evidence in reality to back it up is just assertion and a form of argument from ignorance.

I never said it could only be soul, but rather that is what I call soul.

How am I conflating? Subjective reality is personal experience. Objective reality is provable function through direct evidence.