addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [questioningrel-83] Re: Brain injury/abnormality and its relation to mind/body dualism

From: Anna
Sent on: Thursday, April 8, 2010 6:20 PM
I sent this as less of a challenge and more of a probe into the
dualistic point of view as I'm somewhat fuzzy on what people in the
group may mean specifically when they say 'soul'. As in, how would
such a thing actually work.

The way that I see it:

1. It influences the physical and has a physical component as well as
some "other" component.

2. It influences the physical and is entirely physical though
currently not detectable(though theoretically it may be detectable at
some future time)

3. It does not influence the physical and cannot be detected(and
theoretically can never be detected).

I was looking for a more elaborate description of how #1 may function
since #2 fits right into the physical model(I like this better than
"materialistic" since that is a theory onto itself and different from
what we're talking about) and #3 logics itself out of useful
existence. Keeping in mind that the explanation must account for known
physical phenomena I've listed above.
There's also the possibility of a #4, #5...etc which I have not
accounted for and I'm interested in these as well.

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Douglas Scheesley
<[address removed]> wrote:
> Anna,
> Your question is an interesting challenge (as I agreed with the validity of
> the challenge as we were talking on the way out).? I do, however, see a
> short coming of your challenge.
> If you decide to use Gage as an argument that emotion and state of being are
> governed greatly (or solely) by brain function, you imply that a "soul" does
> not exist because their is no justification for its existence since the
> brain truely does everything that it does.? However, this argument is not
> taking into consideration the beliefs of many who believe in the human soul,
> and one of those beliefs is not that the soul and mind are separate
> entities, but that they do (as David was talking about influence), influence
> one another.
> Understand that these are not neccesarily my own beliefs, but I think you
> fail to understand the belief that people do not neccesairly believe the
> soul is not impacted/influenced by the materialistic.
> The soul can be explained as being disrupted by a traumatic materialistic
> event by feeling the "shock waves".? To portray this, imagine a multitude of
> small paper boats in a small pool of water.? Now, if I were to drive a large
> iron rod thru the paper boat that represents the persons brain, the other
> boats are fine, but they are certainly rocking in the waves in the once calm
> pool.? Now the way each of those boats react to the waves depends on mass,
> shape, orientation, magnitude of the wave, etc.? Now, you would probably say
> the pool of water is merely the nerves throughout the body (saying ouch) and
> chemical reactions (adrenaline rush, you are hurt, dummy, run!).? But if the
> soul and body are one when a human is alive, just as a pool of water has
> positive amplitude waves that are above the plane, it has negative waves
> that are below the plane, which also influence currents below the surface.
> I may be wrong, but this idea of influence may be what David?getting to, but
> perhaps not in the more religious manner in which I am invoking it.
> I agree, those who believe in the soul need to answer the question as to why
> a materialistic event would influence the emotional aspects that are
> considered to be governed by the soul.? But at the same time, you need to
> answer the question as to why you seem to believe (and you may correct me,
> of course) that those who believe in a soul as the governor of emotion,
> believe it to be independent and unaffected by materialistic events.
> I hope my point was clear, as I often fall into being overly abstract for my
> own good, and enjoy playing devil's advocate.
> Regards,
> Douglas Scheesley
> --
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on
> this mailing list ([address removed])
> This message was sent by Douglas Scheesley ([address removed]) from
> Agnostics Anonymous Phoenixville.
> To learn more about Douglas Scheesley, visit his/her member profile
> To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here
> Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] |
> [address removed]

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy