/lit/ - Literature

>>6242266
no u

>>6242266
Define yourself and prove you exist

>>6242277
>>6242272
I didn't make this thread to prove anything; don't act like it's my responsibility.

>>6242266
>>6242277
>>6242311

>>6242266
It doesn't matter, really. But I don't think it exist.

>>6242266
soul = metaphysical representation of a living being

who really cares if it exists

it doesn't need to

>>6242266
>>6242277
>>6242311
>>6242355
The soul is that which experiences the doubles. Dubito ergo sum.

>>6242266
from what movie that pic comes?

I'll see you again in 25 years

>>6242413
Maybe you should learn from the masters. In the meantime just check my dubs.

>>6242427

https://youtube.com/watch?v=u3IrMM0jc9M

the soul is the composite of matter and form in such a way that results in life. hylemorphic dualism baby

>>6242266
Undefinable. Taken as basic for any and all other inquiries. If it's not, then there's no reason to believe in the existence or truth of anything else.

>>6242266
define "prove"

>>6242521
demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

>Define the soul
Accumulated memories and personality present in the brain till death.
>Prove it exists.
We gots brains.

>>6242476
tv series, not even once
thanks anyway

>>6242634
>in the brain
Please dissect a brain and show me these memories and "personality" empirically.

I'll wait.

>>6242641
>tv series, not even once

What do you mean? You have something against TV series?

>>6242641

kill yourself
it's probably the most interesting project filmed in the 90s

you know nothing

>>6242413
>>6242336
Please you two, check some real digits like these.

The soul is multiple phenotypical factors, as well as others such as age and experience and affinity for jazz and blues music, and their reflection on a person. This is why old black men who have seen much and possibly play saxophone are the most soulful people, while young whites have little to no soul.

>>6242666

>>6242666
satan

>>6242266
Do define something means to present the parts it's comprised of, their spatiotemporal coordinates, and the relations between them. Soul is supposed to be immaterial. But anything that can be definable in the aforementioned sense IS matter. We can't talk rationally about anything else than matterial entities. An enitity, and individual existence is something necessarily limited in space. Souls cannot be. Otherwise their matter. The only immaterial things in the universe is the universe itself.

>>6242648
So you're basically saying that your self doesn't exist.

>>6242662
>you know nothing

Ygritte pls

>>6242699
wat
to define something you don't have to prove its material.

>>6242699

you are a moron
it's time to stop posting

>>6242651
If I want long stories + chara development I pick up a book.
Certainly I don't spend 20+ hours in front of an home appliance.

>>6242715
To define is to determine. Only material things have determinations, i.e. they have a form, because their limited in space and time.

>>6242726
You sound like a pretentious cunt

>>6242648
You'd kill it that way.
I'm not into biology that much, but isn't it electrical synapses imprinting these traits and memories onto parts of the brain that make us what we are? There's your soul. A frail and mortal thing.

>>6242699
>Souls cannot be. Otherwise their matter. The only immaterial things in the universe is the universe itself.

>>6242726

why is spending 20 hours in front of a book more valuable than watching a tv show?

are you naive about how you choose to entertain yourself or are you just a tryhard

>>6242726
But you probably spend 20+ hours in front of a computer, which is a home appliance as well

>>6242740
holy shit
see >>6242721

>>6242726
I was hoping for this answer. Thanks for existing. Same here. I'm so exasperated by the lack of support for my anti-TV rants I get on /tv/ I thought I'm the only one and I'm crazy.

>>6242756

>isn't it electrical synapses imprinting these traits and memories onto parts of the brain that make us what we are?

this is elementary tier bullshit

go read a fucking book
even /sci/ isn't this stupid, usually>>6242758

>>6242766

you're just trying hard
it's kind of pathetic

>>6242756
>imprinting these traits and memories

What memories? Before establishing we have a soul and there's a conscience, we don't have memories proper. There are only electrical "signals", impulses, electric sperm swimming around in our heads.

BUY THE NEW SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED CHAKRA BOOK

WE SELL IT TO CLEAN YOUR SOUL TO BE FINALLY HAPPY IN THIS CAPITALIST SOULESS SOCIETY

BE FREE OF YOUR MATERIAL COMPLICATIONS ONLY FOR $5.99

>>6242266
Colors.

>>6242771
Another empty post from anon. Yes it's an elementary understanding, I just said that. Are you refuting it in whole or just part? Are you implying you know better?

>>6242792
Every time I want to reply to your post I keep forgetting what you typed. Oh well, never mind.

What's the Twin Peaks of books?

>>6242726
yeah it's so fucking stupid, right? that's why i don't own a microwave, blender, refrigerator, oven, dishwasher, stove. just a fucking waste of time, all those damn home appliances.

>>6242856
Boroughs?

>>6242851
>Every time I want to reply to your post I keep forgetting what you typed. Oh well, never mind.

SEPPUKU YRSLF

>>6242756
>You'd kill it that way.
Perhaps you shouldn't make such outrageous claims then, if you can't in fact demonstrate the spatial location of memories that you so eagerly presuppose.

>I'm not into biology that much, but isn't it electrical synapses imprinting these traits and memories onto parts of the brain that make us what we are?
Biology? Biology merely scratches the surface here. Cognitive science, metaphysics, and logic, are doing all the important conceptual work concerning souls and whatnot.

I won't go into the "I'm not into x that much, but here's an ill-conceived definition that is in x's spirit which "proves" that there are no souls" phenomenon.

>>6242897
>Perhaps you shouldn't make such outrageous claims then, if you can't in fact demonstrate the spatial location of memories that you so eagerly presuppose.
What are you babbling about?

>I won't go into the "I'm not into x that much, but here's an ill-conceived definition that is in x's spirit which "proves" that there are no souls" phenomenon.
Again; What?
OP asked for a definition and proof. I gave it. Now you want to graft over your idea for a soul? You think it has to be immortal, don't you?

A soul is not something but it's not a nothing either. Catch my spiel?

>>6242266
The sentient, conscious entity that results from the activity of the central nervous system.

It can't be defined or measured by any known means, therefore its existence can't be proven beyond individual experience

>>6242648
You must be the stupidest person I've met.

Memories, personality, and thought, are phenomena which occur in the brain, they're not a physical part of it.

>>6242856
Beyond the Wall of Sleep, The Crawling Chaos and other stories from H.P. Lovecraft's "Dream Cycle"

>>6242666
Cheers, I really enjoyed your digit repetition.

>>6243107
Anything that can be enclosed in the cranial box is physical.

>>6242666

>>6242998
>You think it has to be immortal
No, I don't, I am merely pointing out to your conceptual confusions; confusions, which you still seemingly fail to get a hang of.

You're an interesting case, though. I've observed similar instances of this phenomenon (yet another! you must be rich in those). I'd love to know what goes through your mind whenever your musings of soul are rendered as incoherent. I mean, from your perspective, how did you manage to infer that I MUST be thinking of soul as of something immortal?

>>6243107
>which occur in the brain,
>they're not a physical part of it.

I'll be merciful and won't ironize about "You must be the stupidest person I've met."

>>6243133
>how did you manage to infer
Mostly as a jab. You really volunteer little information.

The self or soul resides in the brain. It's simple. Now what *are* your thoughts on the subject? All this puffery and you've revealed nothing.

>>6242856
The Trial, in atmosphere anyway.

>>6243158
Much like the combustion produced by the engine of your car isn't a part of the machine, the output of the brain is not a part of it.

>>6243207

what does the brain output to?

>>6243123
>>6243158
Not him, but our memories, and our psyche as a whole, are a RESULT of our brain's activity; they do not exist as physical things, even though they are appear to be real to the thinking, conscious being.

>>6243221
Only physical things can exist. Define the concept of "nonphysical existence". When you say "thing" you automatically mean physics.

>>6243217
To itself.

>>6243238

>Only physical things can exist.

prove it

>>6243184
>The self or soul resides in the brain
If that were the case, we would have discovered the self or the soul by now. Consider autopsies, or, if you insist that in those circumstances the soul would be dead, neurosurgical operations on live patients.

Again, what kind of evidence do you have for the claim? Seems likes there is none. Never have I read or heard a neurosurgeon go: "I found the soul!". Again, if that were the case, it would be a huge deal.

Come on, muster all your powers and put forth a convincing argument for your belief.

>>6243107
They are a part of the brain in the same way words on a page are part of that page.

>>6243250
>>>/semantics and basic logic/

>>6242266
the soul is the sort of residual memory-traces retained in ur organism's musculature, in its acculturated techniques of movement, etc., and in its germinating and remembering the choreographies of movements it has made w/r/t other bodies, viz., other presumed "I"s and souls

>>6243263

kill yourself
you can't even answer a question

what semantics and what basic logic did you use to arrive at the truth statement 'only physical things can exist'

I will be waiting. I need a good laugh

>>6243250
By definition, 'to exist' means 'to be located in space-time'

>>6243259
>If that were the case, we would have discovered the self or the soul by now

That's because there ain't none? Saying the soul resides in the brain is sayin the soul is the brain.

>>6243293

not even close
where did you get that definition?

>>6243184
you're a fucking moron. seriously. stop posting already.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7674.html
http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/theatrics/7/victor_turner.htm
http://www.cambridge.org/US/academic/subjects/sociology/social-theory/how-societies-remember

each person is a "groupuscule" as guattari put it
http://www.editions-lignes.com/ECRITS-POUR-L-ANTI-OEDIPE.html

the very mechanisms of life-affirming processes in general, in a biophysical sense, are social. this is by definition. i mean that there is interfacing and choreography on every level and on every scale in the reproduction of organic "wholes" or objects

>>6243207
>Much like the combustion produced by the engine of your car isn't a part of the machine
Except that it *is* a part of the machine since combustion is a molecular, and thus, physical, process. Then, if memories, if they are equated to molecular processes, could be, in principle, empirically verified and shown that they are in fact memory-molecules of such-and-such memory. Your analogy fails. Plus, you've derailed from talk of memories to talk of "output of the brain".

>>6243221
Okay, now we are getting somewhere; but why would you respond on his behalf? In contrast to you, he's unconvincingly arguing for strict physicalism.

>>6243293

Do gravity, momentum, and inertia exist in space-time?

>>6243303
>Saying the soul resides in the brain is sayin the soul is the brain
No, he wasn't claiming that. Or if he was, he should have been more specific, as in "The soul is the brain".

"Soul resides in the brain" means that soul is to be found IN the brain, and thus is A PART of the brain, not THE BRAIN itself.

>>6243316
Those are properties of things.

>>6243250
>243263
Absence of evidence of non-physical existence.

>>6243315
>Then, if memories, if they are equated to molecular processes, could be, in principle, empirically verified and shown that they are in fact memory-molecules of such-and-such memory.
Let me rephrase that: Then, if memories are to be equated to molecular processes, these processes could be, in principle, empirically verified and shown that they are in fact memory-molecules of such-and-such memory.

>>6243323
The soul is probably the quantum electric field generated by some minimum number of functional neurons.

>>6243259
>If that were the case, we would have discovered the self or the soul by now.
It is the case, and by my definition, it has.
>Consider autopsies, or, if you insist that in those circumstances the soul would be dead, neurosurgical operations on live patients.
OH, you're genius.

>Again, what kind of evidence do you have for the claim?
Aww. Now you've lost all your genius
>Seems likes there is none.
Refer to my first post.

>Come on, muster all your powers and put forth a convincing argument for your belief.
Refer to the OP and my first post. Then reveal your ideas to us once and for all.

>>6243341
Yeah, said by every reader of pop-science ever. Do you also believe quantum mechanics has everything to do with free will?

Fucking quantum-freaks and their quantum-word-salads. Jesus fucking Christ.

Read some actual cognitive science and analytic philosophy for a change.

>>6243341
no. probably not. you're probably a moron.

>>6243329

Why do things have these properties? The laws of physics are what give objects properties, correct? But they don't exist anywhere on space-time.

>>6243238
>>6243263
Is information real?
Yes
Does it exist physically?
No
Neither does the human psyche. It is essentially "composed" of innumerable bits of information, created, arranged and ordered by the brain.

>>6243315
>he's unconvincingly arguing for strict physicalism
>Memories, personality, and thought, are phenomena which occur in the brain, they're not a physical part of it.
Am I missing something?

>>6243357
not him/her but properties are relational, they can be said to exist in space-time if by this we understand that we mean only that there are some multitude of "worms" coexisting (instantiations of "wholes" on other scales, or the appearance of these worms in manifestations, on a time-slice by time-slice basis) and perhaps even collapsing for some time or banging-out another fragmentational worm or what have you

>>6243353
>>6243356
What else can it be? The ultimate output of the inter-neural firings are electrical signals. The difference between an unconscious brain and consious one is a matter should be a matter of extension, intensity, and topology of that very continuum resulting from the collaboration of the brain cells.

>>6243378
>information-babble
Information theory approach to philosophy of mind is just one of the many. I keep wondering why the concept of information keeps coming up in discussions like these, and not some other approach. The far-reaching a buzzword, the more adherers? Who knows.

>Am I missing something?
Yes --- you're missing a contradiction in terms, which are mutually incompatible.

>>6243378
>Is information real?
>Does it exist physically?

When we talk about information we actually still talk about physical matter. It's just a more approximate, common-sensical way of dealing with it. Information is a property of matter.

What does anon think about emergent phenomena?

Here's what I think: objects consist of some composition of matter, like good ole elements and molecules, etc. and this matter is structured in a certain way giving it form. The object's nature follows from it's form and matter, nature meaning just what it is for that object to be what it is and not another object. (This is pure Aristotle here). Aristotle thought soul was hierarchical, consisting of the composite of form and matter that generated life. So we have the vegetative soul, which results in homeostasis, growth, etc. of plants, then the animal soul with homeostasis but also things like basic thought processes, behavior, etc. and then at the top we have the rational soul which contains all the lower characteristics but also has the capacity to reason.

What we call soul is, I think, entirely based upon the form and matter of our bodies, namely the brain, it's structure, size, composition, etc. If we didn't have our brains as they are structured, our "souls" would be different.

BUT our ideas are like none of the things we experience regularly since they are, by definition, universal, intentional, etc. All our subjective traits are like this (memory, feelings, qualia). They are dependent on the brain, but are not reducible to it, since they are immaterial. In other words, they are emergent properties. From the material emerges the immaterial.

I have no explanation for how these two different types of things can possibly interact. Maybe interaction is the wrong way to look at it all.

Anyway, these are the musings of an interested layman. Thoughts?

>>6243423

Couldn't you say the soul is a property of the brain, just like combustion is a property of an engine and information a property of matter?

>>6243357
The laws of physics are properties of matter. We discover them by observing the behavior of physical things. Your questions are about the origins of the universe ultimately. Where did the first object come from? From pre-existent transcedent laws, or was it alway around and contained in itself all the laws that we observe today?

>>6243428
The emergence of Sky Net is a logical consequence of what you're now describing.

Do you believe in that or would you like to revise your beliefs about the nature of soul?

>>6243471
Yeah. Only that combustion is more like a property of the gas.

>>6242641
you are fool for not watching twin peaks because it's a series. it's produced and created by lynch, it's not just some entertainment show. the sopranos, northern exposure, and twin peaks are the only tv series worth watching.

>>6243471
>Couldn't you say the soul is a property of the brain
First, define 'soul' satisfactory to everyone: the philosopher and the neuroscientist; second, see (directly or indirectly) that the brain has this property.

Now, did your definition, empirical findings, and explanatory theory convince both the philosopher and the neuroscientist? No? Redefine the soul, and repeat step 2.

>>6243565
What is House of Cards?

>>6243602

Just because there's a disagreement it doesn't mean your premises are wrong.

>>6243602
>implying philosophers have a say in the matter

>>6243714
If your premises were in fact true, they would be so in virtue of intelligent guess; since, if it were in virtue of actual evidence and actual explanatory theory, there would be no disagreement left. Everyone with half a brain would adhere to it, like we adhere to Einsteinian General Relativity.

>>6243771
They do. They tidy up the conceptual mess of neuroscientists. Crick, for example, has been ridiculed by many; most notably by Dennett and Hacker (both are echoing Wittgenstein).

If you don't think philosophers have a say in the matter, not only you are mistaken but you are literally basking in the surface area of the debate, which wouldn't surprise me one bit, since this is 4chan.

>>6243773

Uh, there are plenty of examples of intelligent people denying factually correct concepts. The roundness of the earth, evolution, the idea that objects fall at the same speed (this one by devout Aristotelians), the falseness of heliocentric orbit... the list goes on.

>>6242266
Are you the author of this image? I like you and your dubs.

>>6243811

Uh, I mean people denied Earth's heliocentric orbit, not that it's false.

>>6242277
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeB3eYk1Ze0

>>6242266
>>6242413
>>6242666
Stop making me spill milk from my nosetrils, please, seriously.

>>6243811
> there are plenty of examples of intelligent people denying factually correct concepts
And you consider them intelligent? Have mercy on yer soul.

Define define
Define exist

Am I being deep yet Hur dur

Fucking philosophers

>>6243852
Are you parodying philosophers because you realize how much of a mess you would make in defining those words yourself?

Also, you're not making any sense, grammatically speaking. Ever heard of the use-mention distinction... the one invented by ...a philosopher?

>>6243838

You need to look at what they considered truth through their own perspective. Correct me if I'm mistaken but did Aristotle not dismiss Democratus' theory that matter is made from indicividual "building blocks" that make up all things, aka atoms? Just because you deny the truth it does not mean you are not intelligent.

>>6243878
>Correct me if I'm mistaken but did Aristotle not dismiss Democratus' theory that matter is made from indicividual "building blocks" that make up all things, aka atoms?
This case is different because Democritus' "theory" was not a theory, but a mere hypothesis that couldn't be verified (lack of technology) back in the days. Aristotle didn't believe his hypothesis because there was no apparent evidence for it; in contrast, General Relativity has all the evidence for it.

>>6243890

And there we have it. My premises aren't exactly based on demonstrable fact. The nature of soul is one that is immaterial; you can't prove it exists empirically.

>>6242455
Checked :^)

my turn

>>6243904
And there we have what exactly? If your "premises aren't exactly based on demonstrable fact" then your premises are incoherent, meaningless, and so forth.

Moreover, Democritus hypothesis *was* based on (certain) facts. Democritus' hypothesis was at least conceivable as true, since, we can observe that there are small objects, many of which are divisible into yet smaller ones, and so on.

What do you have going for your hypothesis that souls are immaterial, except for the hypothesis itself?

>you can't prove it exists empirically.
And I don't need to prove anything; it's your hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you if you want to convince anyone.

>>6243957

Premise: Souls exist, and they a property/output of the brain, but not "part" of it.

Argument: In the same way combustion is a property/output of an engine while not being a component of the machine itself, and momentum and acceleration are properties of an object while not actually existing in reality as some sort of entity, the soul exists and is what allows us to think abstractly.

I realize this is a rough argument so try to poke some holes in it.

>>6243404
see >>6243268 and >>6243313


>>6243475
see >>6243392


this board is full of morons.

>>6244068
See >>6242266
>Define the soul, and prove it exists.

Your definition is BS and you've proven nothing of it.

Default to physical world.