mind/soul (blueprint??))

Bloxy's Bloxy's at hotmail.com
Wed Nov 4 19:59:39 EST 1998


In article <3640c1f5.0 at ns2.wsg.net>, "Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net> wrote:
>
>
>Seth Russell wrote in message <363F9B7C.64E965EB at clickshop.com>...
>>Ray Scanlon wrote:

>>> It is for this reason that I argue that people should use the word "soul"
>>> instead of "mind" when referring to that which is aware. Let the brain
>think
>>> and let neuroscientists examine the brain. Let the soul (mind, self,
>>> intellect) be aware of the constellations of active neurons in the
>working
>>> brain. Let the soul be aware of them as "thoughts".

>>I have not been following this train and apologize if this has already been
>>covered.  But to me there is a grand distinction between "mind" and "soul".
>Now
>>as these are natural language words they will be pointing to many different
>>things in many different minds, but in my mind (and I hazard a guess in
>most
>>people's minds) the word "soul" carries with it a lot of religious
>connotations
>>that are not present in the "mind" word.  Your paragraph above does not
>contain
>>any religious connections, so if you don't want those connotations, why not
>just
>>use the word "mind" and not confuse people with this other more
>controversial
>>baggage?

>I suspect that if majority vote were to rule, the following might be
>adopted:

>Mind--that part or faculty of the human soul by which it knows and reasons
>as distinguished from the power to feel and to will.

>I say this because the large majority are religious and only the minority
>deny the soul. My argument is that it is the brain that thinks, the soul is
>aware only. Probably most who work in cognitive and allied sciences envision
>"mind" as an homunculus that selects from the data proffered by the brain,
>manipulates the data, comes to a conclusion, and forwards the decision to
>the brain for execution. This won't due in today's neuroscience.

Yes, that model wont do.

>I feel that we can escape this homunculus by sticking with the brain as the
>thinker and using "soul" when we consider that which is aware.

Yes.

> When we talk
>of that which is aware, we enter theology and should use "soul" to remind us
>of what we do.

Well, as long, as theology is not tautology.

The effect of awareness is detectable, identifiable,
and quite specific. It is true that different issues
arrise and different methods are needed to deal with it.

But it is not merely a philosophical concept.
Awareness is quite specific and, in a certain sense,
objective, and thus identifiable.

The consequenses of such awareness are quite different,
than ordinary logical or other manipulations we use,
and the very language of the psyche is beyond the words,
as it is beyond ALL judgement.

The validity is intrinsic. No prove even necessary,
and, with the methodologies we have at the moment,
not even possible.

>Ray





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list