you are the awareness behind your mind/body.?
thus proving the existence of your soul, thus proving the existence of god.
what do you think?
Just how does proving existence tie in with proving God?
I don’t think “being aware” is the essential quality of soul… And I’m not sure what it means to be “behind” mind/body…
What’s the mind then if not aware?
I also don’t see how this ties to God…
Leaving aside issues about the ramifications of such proof…far more interesting to me would be the method someone tries to use to demonstrate that a soul actually exists.
If Bertrand Rusell is right in his critique of Descartes, “I think therefore I am” is fundamental question begging. (See problems of Philosophy)
If you’re trying to demonstrate the “I” then you cannot use “I” as one of your premises. To be a consistent doubter, Descartes should have said, “Thinking is taking place”…but then…“I am” would not have followed.
In that case, what is self consciousness other than a mere bundle of perceptions…tied down and ordered by external protocols? Honest philosophers admit that the free man is dead in His freedom. Either “you” is totally determined by external factors (like laws of language and predication) or “you” is completely free in essence and unable to “move” in a metaphorical sense…therefore, death.
You cannot think, reason, or use language without law…but with law, you cannot be “you” in the sense that the existentialist would want.
Oh the histarical conundrums of unbeliving thought…
This thought is often split into two main ideas.
Through the body we have the mind or through the mind we are aware of the body.
I believe that it is through the body we have the mind. We are simply placed within and as an evolutionary trait the conscious arises. This conscious is easily what one would call “soul”.
One cannot “prove” consciousness exists. Other than being aware of our own there is no literal way to gauge other beings of having consciousness. Yes, this does fall into solipsism and I am fine with that. I do not act as an advocate for it but understand its inability to be proven. Sartre said we become aware of others consciousness through “the look” or how we feel when others see us. I would argue that this “shame” or other feelings that arise from “the Look” stem from our own consciousness grasping to understand.
What? Most philosophers (whom you are misunderstanding) say that man cannot be without society BUT he is still free. I could go into a whole new thread about the limitations of men and the influence of society but most late 19th and 20th century philosophers would disagree with what you said. Heidegger, in particular, says that man cannot be free from the ties of man but he can live at times away from the “They” or society.
I noticed you tried to attack the existentialists earlier in another thread so I will ask you a few questions about this statement. What is a law? What good is reason? Also, what do you mean by “you”? An authentic being? “Becoming what you are”?
historical or hysterical? what does believing have to do with this topic?
Satori:
You’ve replaced a loaded term with another loaded term (soul with conscious). But more importantly, what is the point of questioning in the form of “what we have through what”? i.e., Why does it matter if through the body we have the mind or through the mind we have the body? It seems to me both are true given certain readings…
Is the second sentence here a proof that we cannot prove consciousness exists? If so, isn’t awareness of our own enough? You don’t need to prove multiple consciousnesses exist to prove consciousness exists… You only need to prove one exists, and apparently you are aware of your own…
I think that ‘existance’ is spelled ‘existence’. What do you all think?
This is not an incidence where we can approve both. We must place our feet on the ground in the statement I gave. I could very well be wrong. I say that soul is equivocal to conscious but I do not feel any statement I could give to be an adequate definition for either. Intuitively, I believe they are the same. The trouble with me is I find the ambivalence of words and our attempt to define a key issue of thought.
I see your point here. But if our world is all or only our own; there is not consciousness but only being. There is a gross limitation that consciousness creates if others have it. I see being aware of ourselves or self-cognizance is pointless if there aren’t others around to participate within. We may be simply functioning. Also, how would you test consciousness?
Depends which “soul” we are talking about:
Spiritual Soul:
This is a statement that I am more than my body and mind.
That I am a spirit possessing my human form.
Metaphysical Soul:
This is a statement that I am more than my body and mind.
That I also contain a human spirit that completes the total of being human.
the mind presents you with ideas and the soul chooses what to do with them.
the soul part is the you part. and you are your soul, not your physical self. the physical part merely presents the soul part with the ideas, and the soul part (the you part) chooses what to do with them.
the word soul is synonymous with a non-physical self.
because you, ultimately, are only the chooser of your decisions. you are the entity which chooses the actions of this physical body, almost like your guiding this animal…
like… the mind would tell you you were hungry, but not necessarily to eat the food like a dog would. though you have the option to do that. the you part determines wether you want to do it like that…
im saying the mind merely presents the you part with your desires such as hunger,libido and even thought… the body is merely a vessel for moving and interacting in this physical world, whats driving the vessel is your soul. whats choosing how you want to act when presented with your options is your soul…
existence
How do you separate the mind from the soul? The two are both in the brain aren’t they? Does that mean everyone in heaven is mindless?
Try thinking of concepts of Heaven as if one were thinking of a different dimension.
It’s a fun exercise that seems theoretically plausible, regardless if believed or not.
In as much, ask the question of “mind” regarding just some of the known dimensions in quantum theory, for instance, such as the 11th dimension which is so ridiculously thin in calculation, but spread out throughout many other dimensions.