Do we have a soul that only God can destroy?

[McCulloch]

While you may consider my statement an opinion, I will also defend it as truth. We have a soul with a consciousness that only God can destroy.

Do we have a soul with a consciousness that only God can destroy?

[instantc]

Since materialism excludes the existence of something concrete but non-spatial, and there is no part of the brain which qualifies for being the self, one must conclude that the self is an illusion. I am not a neuroscientist, but I am merely citing Dr. Rosenberg's work here, http://onthehuman.org/2009/11/the-disen ... o-reality/

Let's take these one at a time. Materialism does not exclude the existence of things concrete. Just the opposite. Materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.

I am completely baffled by your pronouncement that things concrete are not material. 'Concrete' is certainly not only material, it is a material.

I don't fully understand your post here. I said that materialism, at least in the narrow sense as I understand it, holds that the only concrete things are energy and matter, which are both spatial by definition. Therefore existence of anything concrete but non-spatial is excluded. This is almost a direct quotation from Dr. Rosenberg's work.

Again you postulate without evidence that the self is an illusion. When a leg is removed, the self is diminished by exactly one leg. No more nor less. You are not the same person in the morning. You are the same person, minus one leg.

The 'experience of the self' does indeed change. The self is now the same, absent the leg. My self is now a self with one leg. This is true in a literal sense; however, since the part of the brain that includes two legs has not been removed, the brain may produced 'phantom limb' phenomena. This is easily explained simply by looking at materialist neuroscience experiments. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran for one has studied and published in this area.

I don't see how you could equate the self with the body. The self is that which is experiencing the consciousness, the subjective agent. By removing a leg one changes the content of the experience in the same way as one would do by redecorating his room. However, neither the room or the leg is experiencing the consciousness. I think by 'self' perhaps you mean something completely different than I do.

[Danmark]

Since materialism excludes the existence of something concrete but non-spatial, and there is no part of the brain which qualifies for being the self, one must conclude that the self is an illusion. I am not a neuroscientist, but I am merely citing Dr. Rosenberg's work here, http://onthehuman.org/2009/11/the-disen ... o-reality/

Let's take these one at a time. Materialism does not exclude the existence of things concrete. Just the opposite. Materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.

I am completely baffled by your pronouncement that things concrete are not material. 'Concrete' is certainly not only material, it is a material.

I don't quite understand what you are talking about here. I said that materialism, at least in the narrow sense as I understand it, holds that the only concrete things are energy and matter, which are both spatial by definition. Therefore existence of anything concrete but non-spatial is excluded. This is also almost a direct quotation from Dr. Rosenberg's work.

We are in agreement that materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.

When you introduce words like 'concrete' and 'non spatial' [especially the latter] I'm not sure what you mean.

But if you are saying that the brain is material and thought arises from material and energy produced by the physical brain, we are in agreement.

As for Dr. Rosenberg, if you want to represent his work go right ahead. But I am not going to spend hours researching it and reading everything he's written.. If you want to make your argument make it. If you can represent what you think he is saying go ahead. But debaters here should not be expected to accept URL references as arguments.

[YahDough]

While you may consider my statement an opinion, I will also defend it as truth. We have a soul with a consciousness that only God can destroy.

Do we have a soul with a consciousness that only God can destroy?

Yes.
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

Mt:10:28:

[instantc]

When you introduce words like 'concrete' and 'non spatial' [especially the latter] I'm not sure what you mean.

But if you are saying that the brain is material and thought arises from material and energy produced by the physical brain, we are in agreement.

This is exactly what I am saying. In the materialist view, there is just physical brain activity, such things as subjective agents or the self don't exist, unless by 'self' you are just referring to the brain or to the body as a whole.

[instantc]

Property dualism holds that consciousness is a property of the brain, and that it cannot be reduced to physical brain activity. From these presumptions it logically follows that the consciousness is a non-physical property of the brain. There are several philosophical arguments, which support this theory, and I'd be glad to discus them in case someone here would be interested in that.

I believe you are confusing 'property dualism' with 'substance dualism.' Property dualism hold that consciousness IS a property that inheres in the material of the brain.
Property dualism describes a category of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that, although the world is constituted of just one kind of substance - the physical kind - there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties. In other words, it is the view that non-physical, mental properties (such as beliefs, desires and emotions) inhere in some physical substances (namely brains)._ Wikipedia

But this is exactly what I say above, isn't it? The mind is a non-physical property of the brain, just as your quotation also says almost word by word.

To say that the mental properties inhere in the material of the brain is different from saying that they can be reduced to physical brain activity. Property dualism affirms the former but denies the latter.

Substance dualism posits the mind as an entity existing separately from the physical body. Against that position, I think, we have good evidence.

[Danmark]

Property dualism holds that consciousness is a property of the brain, and that it cannot be reduced to physical brain activity. From these presumptions it logically follows that the consciousness is a non-physical property of the brain. There are several philosophical arguments, which support this theory, and I'd be glad to discus them in case someone here would be interested in that.

I believe you are confusing 'property dualism' with 'substance dualism.' Property dualism hold that consciousness IS a property that inheres in the material of the brain.
Property dualism describes a category of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that, although the world is constituted of just one kind of substance - the physical kind - there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties. In other words, it is the view that non-physical, mental properties (such as beliefs, desires and emotions) inhere in some physical substances (namely brains)._ Wikipedia

But this is exactly what I say above, isn't it? The mind is a non-physical property of the brain, just as your quotation also says almost word by word.

To say that the mental properties inhere in the material of the brain is different from saying that they can be reduced to physical brain activity. Property dualism affirms the former but denies the latter.

I get confused myself between property dualism and substance dualism. I like keithprosser's example of the dynamo being the brain and the electricity it produces representing consciousness.

For the purpose of our discussion about the soul, there is no soul, no consciousness without the brain to produce it. When the brain no longer has any energy jumping between axons, there is no thought, no consciousness, no 'soul.'

Brain death = soul death. When the dynamo is destroyed, no electricity is produced.

[instantc]

Why posit any of this? All each of us knows for certain is that I, the individual, experiences consciousness.

Actually I think that in materialism, there is no 'I', the illusion of the self is just different parts of the brain interacting with each other. The self cannot be the whole body, and there is no part of the brain, which would qualify for being the self. Materialism doesn't allow anything concrete but non-spatial to exist, therefore the self is an illusion. This is what Alexander, for example, argues in his book Disenchanted Naturalist's Guide to Reality.

The above may well be the case, but one might also consider property dualism, which holds that the mind is indeed a concrete but non-spatial property of the brain. This view can be supported by several conceptual philosophical arguments, which I find quite convincing.

A common strawman is to describe materialism as some strict philosophy that nothing but the material "exists". This commits the equivocation fallacy because there are many different meanings of the word "exist" that the fallacy-maker is waffling between to make their fallacious argument.

So what i would claim: only matter is known to PHYSICALLY exist.

But, I didn't say that nothing but the material exists, did I? I said that the only CONCRETE thing existing is the material. As far as I can see, you are saying the same thing, except that instead of concrete existence you talk about things that physically exist. Perhaps we are having problems with communication because English is not my first language, but by 'concrete' I meant the same thing as you here.

[YahDough]

Property dualism holds that consciousness is a property of the brain, and that it cannot be reduced to physical brain activity. From these presumptions it logically follows that the consciousness is a non-physical property of the brain. There are several philosophical arguments, which support this theory, and I'd be glad to discus them in case someone here would be interested in that.

I believe you are confusing 'property dualism' with 'substance dualism.' Property dualism hold that consciousness IS a property that inheres in the material of the brain.
Property dualism describes a category of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that, although the world is constituted of just one kind of substance - the physical kind - there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties. In other words, it is the view that non-physical, mental properties (such as beliefs, desires and emotions) inhere in some physical substances (namely brains)._ Wikipedia

But this is exactly what I say above, isn't it? The mind is a non-physical property of the brain, just as your quotation also says almost word by word.

To say that the mental properties inhere in the material of the brain is different from saying that it can be reduced to physical brain activity. Property dualism affirms the former but denies the latter.

You err to think that the mind is not a physical property associated with the brain. The mind is the soul of the body and exists outside of it. The mind is the physical property of the Creator just as the body is.

Mt:10:28: And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

[Danmark]

[quote="YahDough"]
You err to think that the mind is not a physical property associated with the brain. The mind is the soul of the body and exists outside of it. The mind is the physical property of the Creator just as the body is.

Do you have any evidence outside of scripture that suggests the mind is not a result of the action of the brain; that without the brain (a body part) there is no soul, no mind since there is no brain to produce it?

Again, do you have any evidence for your assertion, other than a quote from the Bible?

[instantc]

You err to think that the mind is not a physical property associated with the brain. The mind is the soul of the body and exists outside of it. The mind is the physical property of the Creator just as the body is.

Mt:10:28: And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

I admire your effort to find a relevant Bible quotation for every single topic we debate around here.