Thursday 22 October 2020

Souls are real but are not things?

I've just read the following piece by Vance Morgan a philosophy professor.

The Soul is Not a Thing, but it Most Certainly is Real

Not sure what it means to say the soul is not a thing but that it nevertheless exists.  And he doesn't explain what he means.  It's not a material thing, no.  But if a soul is our essence, if it is that which makes us the very same person throughout our lives, then why is it not an immaterial thing?

But anyway, the author says: 

[S]cience tells us that everything about us, including our consciousness and all that it entails, is at least in principle reducible to the operations of our physical bodies.

And he also says:

[S]cience has told us for a long time that everything that human beings have traditionally thought that we needed an immaterial “something else” to explain—our thoughts, consciousness, emotions, and so on—is rooted in brain activity.

This is complete nonsense, science tells us no such thing.  Or, if he thinks otherwise, he is required to specify what this research is that suggests this.  

He also says:

[A]s a philosophy professor who, at least in my own understanding of my job description, am there to ask difficult questions, challenge embedded assumptions, and generally blow my students’ minds. For instance, does the notion “non-physical thing” even make sense, since all of our experience of “things that exist” are rooted in stuff made of matter?
So this seems to be suggesting that only things that can be cashed out in terms of our sensory experiences -- i.e only what we see, hear, touch, smell and taste -- can be said to exist.

The first point to make is, why think that? Why do minds, or consciousness, have to be directly perceived in order to exist? No-one ever sees my mind, nor my experiences. Others can only infer what I experience from what I say or from my behaviour, but they do not perceive it. Should we follow the author on this and conclude that the existence of my mind or experiences do not exist?  That would result in each and every person concluding no-one else exists in the world apart from themselves!  And maybe not even themselves since we do not perceive through our senses our own consciousness or minds.  We are just simply directly acquainted with our own consciousness.

Second point, does this mean that what we perceive -- namely colours, smells, sounds etc -- actually exist? That they are part of the furniture of reality? Because this is denied by mainstream scientific thinking.

1 comment:

Ryan Clark said...

>>>[S]cience tells us that everything about us, including our consciousness and all that it entails, is at least in principle reducible to the operations of our physical bodies.<<<

Wow! Even a staunch materialist should find this statement a bit...premature, to put it gently.

Also, I feel like it would be helpful to philosophy of mind if we did away with these physical/non-physical and natural/supernatural dichotomies. They're quite unjustified and lead to a number of artificial "problems". And the terms " supernatural" and "none physical" have stigmas attached to them that cause some smart people to dismiss any explanations that appeal to those terms out of hand.

Anyway, why would anything that exists not be considered "natural", i.e. "part of nature"? Why would anything that can affect our physical world not be called "physical"?

It's only because of these arbitrary distinctions that we come up against completely artificial problems like the "interaction problem" or the causal closure problem.

Why can't the "soul" simply be a different kind of stuff--a kind of non-baryonic matter, a substance with properties not amenable to detection by third-person physics? Perhaps qualitative in nature rather than quantitative? It just seems like a lot of this linguistic baggage gets in way of respectful and productive philosophical dialogue.

Whodunit

People constantly boast about anticipating the "big reveals" or "whodunnits" in novels and films. But, these big reveals...