SOUL - Who? What? Where?

So you give more emphasis to a theory put forward by an evolutionary psychologist and consider the observations of doctors and naturalists as assumptions.

That is truly interesting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually my fav reference site is pubmed. Its my home page.

But it doesn't cover social sciences and liberal arts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Doctors are not in the realm of consciousness behavior Sam, they are physical doctors, for whatever ails you. The field of "instintual behavior" false on the observations of Psychology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does not make their observations less relevant; after all if your kid was sick, you'd trust the doctor's observations over the psychologists wouldn't you? And psychiatrists are also doctors.

 

I just noticed something about behavior!.

I've been on Sciforum apx 5.5 years, and you been here how long? Damn girl you got to get a life, you got 1200 more posts then I, and been here lot less time! LOL...

 

I spend 10 hours a day in the lab. I'll get a life after my PhD.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That page portrays the academic value of Objectivist philosophy to be as disputed an issue as I initially believed.

Frankly, I never found much worth in her philosophy. Its tenets seem to be rather arbitrary and individualistic to such a point that it is suggestive of a misanthropic bitterness that I have come to associate with many of her followers. Furthermore, whereas socialism could be accused of worship of the collective, Objectivist philosophy is like worship of the self and is no healthier than its communal sibling. From a purely philosophical standpoint, rather than attempt to understand the human experience, Objectivism seems to presuppose its nature and then attempt to justify it.

More than anything, I'd classify Objectivist philosophy as a reaction to the times which saw its birth, not something that would stand on its own merits well beyond the end of the circumstances which prompted it.

 

Sam,

Relevance?

What have these realities to do with the fantasy of a soul? These are all physical neural manifestations.

These are just functions of the same mind. I used the term “duality” in the classic sense of a supernatural component linked with a physical body. If you have a different perspective you will need to elucidate otherwise we will not find common ground.

These are all neural manifestations. There is no justification to imply a soul concept here.

Please clarify “spirituality”. I don’t know what you mean.

 

sam,

New born babies are born with very few neural connections, but they make them very rapidly in those early times. Most connections form due to sensory reactions with the external world. DNA specifics cause unique hard wiring in each of us in terms taste sensitity, rate of neural growth, and countless other hardware characteristics and properties. These DNA related hard-wired features will condition us throughout much of our lives. Apart from that everything must be learnt and learning means new neural connections must be formed. In the beginning a baby is esstially a clean slate. Hunger is a physical property that manifests itself in various sensory characteristcs that impinge on the newly forming brain. Basic hard-wiring causes some motor fucntions and verbal actions to be exibited, i.e. crying, and flailing of arms. The baby is otherwise helpless and totally dependent on adults to provide sustenance. And that begins the learning process as the brain now has a new path - hunger pain, crying, food arrives, hunger pain leaves, satisfaction, pleasure. Etc, etc. You can apply the same principles as more and more neural netoworks are formed and which become more complex as time passes.

This is all entirely physical with absolutely no need for a soul in any aspect.

 

What is a soul, Cris?

 

baum,

A fantasy created by religious people.

 

Is this exactly what you refer to when you use the word "soul," or is there another hypothetical soul which you use in your argumentation?

 

Cris:
Although these are the concepts covered in any religious spirituality, I'll define spirituality in the non-religious sense to clarify what I mean.

I'll use Yoga, since I'm familiar with it.

yoga, meaning union, is based on the belief that the body and mind are connected—one cannot attain enlightenment without the other and both must be properly trained to develop this harmony and balance.

A yogi’s life and training involve much more than practice of the exercises, or asanas, and breathing techniques westerners associate with yoga. The path they follow to enlightenment is called Ashtanga Yoga, meaning “eight limbs.” The eight branches, learned and practiced simultaneously, are:

* Yamas—moral conduct
* Niyamas—observances
* Asanas—postures
* Pranayama—breath control
* Pratyahara—withdrawal of the senses from external objects
* Dharana—concentration
* Dhyana—meditation
* Samadhi—superconscious experiences, some even define this as complete detachment of both the physical and mental from wordly experiences.

By embracing these many facets of life, striving for humble, sincere, perfection in each, yogis follow the path to enlightenment (or spiritual perfection).

 

baum,

I generally refer to the common meaning of a supernatural element as a part of the duality concept. I'm also aware of countless variations, e.g. reincarnation concepts do not fit particularly well with Christian concepts of a soul, etc. However, all are baseless fantasies and I will react accordingly to any proponent who offers a specific imaginative variation.

 

I know about the neural circuits; I've covered it in clinical nutrition.
I don't agree with the blank slate theory.

I was arguing with the presence of innate instinctual behaviours (regardless of their origin).

They are present in babies and can be (and have been) observed under controlled conditions.

I'm surprised that the presence of instincts is completely ruled out.

Instinctual behaviour has survival benefits and much of it is not learned.

Anyone who has kept pets knows that. Animals exhibit a wide variety of behaviour that are learned, but even those animals brought up in isolation have behaviours that they have not learned but which are quite common to their species.

 

Cris

On the contrary there is no molecular evidence of how the brain works - I think you would be hard pressed to present info by any one practicing in the field who could say "Here is the molecular evidence of why a squirrel has the ability to jump up and down a tree"

 

Here is an interesting perspective:
http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/pinker_gray.html

 

sam,

That doesn’t really help. I don’t see yoga as a spiritual activity. Certainly as part of my TM-Sidhi program I use certain simple asanas, and pranyama, and the bulk is mediation. Certainly the mind and body are intricately linked and I know that meditation, a primarily mental activity, has profound effects on the body. But these are all physical phenomena. Certainly I can achieve total mental silence and detachment from the world in any situation, noisy or quite, and I do this often. But this is not spiritual, simply very practical as a way to maintain optimal mental and physical health.

So we have both used the term “spiritual” here, yet it is still not defined. I see it as a meaningless mystical expression that in the end simply translates into mental satisfaction. I.e. pleasure, but you won’t find many mystics admit they are simply having fun – that would hardly be seen as appropriately mystical. Try yogic-flying sometime – it is simply hilarious.

 

Sam,

Instincts - read primitive hard-wired neural nets. But as a I said, beyond that everything else must be learnt.

 

Mental satisfaction is not the end of spirituality, you are using an incomplete system for definition. But that's ok, since I doubt you are aiming for enlightenment.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!