Body, Mind and Soul

[jcrawford]

I am currently working on developing a comprehensive theory of cognition which will account for the existence of man's body, mind and soul, and hereby invite all other posters to reasonably critique or otherwise constructively contribute to the further development of the theory.

It should be presumed and understood from the outset that this scientific experiment is both a scientific and religious work in progress and that any successful development of this theory by current posters will be duly accredited to all those who make reasonable contributions to it's development.

Here is a minimalist account of the theory developed so far by yours truly:


COGNITIVE THEORY of BODY, MIND & SOUL.
by
John Crawford


Initial Premises, Presuppositions and Definitions:

1 BODY consists of physically perceivable sensations of material objects and physical forces.

2 MIND consists of self-conscious cognitive mental processes which intermediate between Body and Soul.

3 SOUL is the essence of self, ego, personality, memory and conscious self-awareness of existence.


Self-evident Postulate and Justification
for Theoretical Premises:

I know (cognize) that I have a brain and nervous system within my body, but have no observable, experiential, testable or scientific way of knowing that my brain or nervous system are capable of knowing anything in the sense that it may be classified as mental, cognitive or self-conscious knowledge.


Further Expositions on, and definitions of,
the Nature, Character, Being, Structure and Essence
of Body, Mind and Soul.


1. BODY:

All physical phenomena which may be reasonably and rationally categorized and classified as being part of the universe which physicists have defined as consisting of material force and mass.


2. MIND

All that which is strictly intellectual, cognitive, conceptual and mental in the realm of consciousness and self-awareness.

Eg: ideas, beliefs, theories, thoughts and knowledge.


3. SOUL

All which pertains to self-consciousness and awareness of self, ego, personhood, individual identity and spiritual existence.

[jcrawford]

For further demonstrable truth of the existence of our minds and souls, consult either Nave's, Vine's or Strong's concordances.

Concordances only prove the existence of words in the Bible. I know what the Bible says, I disagree with it.

Then you must agree with what Darwin said about men originating from wild and savage sub-human progenitors once upon at time in Africa?

[McCulloch]

For further demonstrable truth of the existence of our minds and souls, consult either Nave's, Vine's or Strong's concordances.

Concordances only prove the existence of words in the Bible. I know what the Bible says, I disagree with it.

Then you must agree with what Darwin said about men originating from wild and savage sub-human progenitors once upon at time in Africa?

Yes, we have common ancestors with the apes, who were probably more ape-like than human like. Primates, mammals, vertebrates, chordata, multi-celled invertebrate animals, single celled organisms, all our ancestors.

[Furrowed Brow]

All concepts (religious or scientific) are metaphysical and supernatural occurances since they have no material substance which can be objectively studied by physicists.

What do you mean by concept? The meaning or sense of a word, phrase or name?

Modern philosophy of logic and language kind of agrees on some major issues here. Meaning is what makes a proposition true/false. Sense is the context. Frege introduced the idea to modern logic. The meaning of the twinkling light in the sky is the thing it actually is. In Frege's favorite example it is the planet Venus. Now you can call Venus Venus, or the morning Star, or the evening star. Each way of referring to Venus still refers to the same thing. However each way of referring reveals a different sense. The sense being some socially derived context for making the reference. So to cut a long story short, the meaning of our words is out there in the world, and the sense of our words is drawn from some social context.

Wittgenstein made the point that if a lion could talk we would not understand him. Say for example you stumbled across a lion on the savannah and the lion uttered the words "The train is leaving Paddington station at three o'clock precisely" you would not understand what the lion meant because lions don't catch trains. Those words might mean something to you because you do catch trains. But there is no social context for that utterance to mean anything when uttered by a lion. It is the stable behaviours of and responses of our social group to our utterances that buttresses the sense of what we say. The upshot of this major turn of direction taken by philosophy of language in the last hundred years is that meaning and sense of our words are not IN the head, and not IN the mind (nor soul). They are out there in the world around us.

Thus "concepts" are not material or even immaterial because they do not exist in the way you are implying; that way of framing the problem being completely crook.

[jcrawford]

Then you must agree with what Darwin said about men originating from wild and savage sub-human progenitors once upon at time in Africa?

Yes, we have common ancestors with the apes, who were probably more ape-like than human like.

Probably? Ruling out a punk-eek scenario of a species of non-human Australopithicine apes suddenly mutating into the first species of humans overnight, racial gradualism would necessitate that the first pygmy humans in Africa (Homo habilis?) looked a lot more like three foot tall hairy apes with long arms than anything resembling a human being.

[jcrawford]

All concepts (religious or scientific) are metaphysical and supernatural occurances since they have no material substance which can be objectively studied by physicists.

What do you mean by concept? The meaning or sense of a word, phrase or name?

Mental concepts consist of visual images and ideas conceived in one's mind. Meanings are derived from our interpretation of the images and ideas in our mind.
Sense is associated with the logical meaning of what we imagine or conceive.

Thus "concepts" are not material or even immaterial because they do not exist in the way you are implying; that way of framing the problem being completely crook.

Reducing real concepts and ideas to a meaningless framework only adds to the problem of understanding and relating the knowledge we have in our minds to anything constructive or concrete in reality.

[Furrowed Brow]

Mental concepts consist of visual images and ideas conceived in one's mind. Meanings are derived from our interpretation of the images and ideas in our mind. Sense is associated with the logical meaning of what we imagine or conceive.

One short paragraph - yet so much unpacking is needed.

Q1) What is doing the interpreting - and where? The mind? But the mind already has the idea?

Q2) Why is a further interpretation needed?

Q3) As you are saying further interpretation is needed then what is an “idea in our mind” prior to deriving its meaning through interpretation?

Q4) You have said meanings are derived from interpretations of ideas, but you have not clearly defined what you mean by meaning. Could you define meaning please?

Q5) Are logical meanings the same thing as meanings - or do you mean something different?

Q6) You say sense is associated with logical meaning, - are you saying sense is logical meaning, or something else found in association with logical meanings.

Q7) When you say meanings are derived from interpretations of ideas in our mind - you seem to be saying that meanings issue from our minds, and not the world/reality in which the mind inhabits. Do you mean this?

Reducing real concepts and ideas to a meaningless framework only adds to the problem of understanding and relating the knowledge we have in our minds to anything constructive or concrete in reality.

Hmmm. Ok…so you think the problem of squaring knowledge in our minds as it relates to reality can be better solved by a mind that generates meanings from within itself/soul, rather than meanings being formed by that reality. Thus we know what is “out there” by way of just thinking up stuff from …no where. How is this a better approach than to say meanings are the conditions “our there” that make our propositions true or false.

And why is the alternative you are rejecting a “meaningless framework”?

?

[Quixotic]

We have a phrase in our house called calling cock. it goes something like this.

Person makes a stupid argument - trees are actually computers in disguise - fail to back it up, demonstrate reputable resources logically demonstrate their idea, even fully quantify their idea. People say something like - please back up your argument, quantify it properly, stop making wild assumption etc. They refuse, argue with more of the same - get cock called on the argument. This is done firstly to save face - arguing with someone in the manor may result in them saying - ha i can't believe you actually believed me etc - secondly this can result in everyone just bowing down to insanity and, in this case agreeing trees are computer.

So im sorry jcrawford, but im calling cock on this one. You have failed at every point to
a) Define your argument tersely
b) Back up your argument with any of the following
i) Evidence
ii) Logical reasoning based on a sound premise
iii) Tested your idea
iv) Made any predictions using your idea - and they are true
v) respected those points of view disagreeing with your argument
c)be reasonable

I must make it clear that I am not implying you are a cock, only that your argument is cock and I won't be entertaining it any further.

[jcrawford]

Mental concepts consist of visual images and ideas conceived in one's mind. Meanings are derived from our interpretation of the images and ideas in our mind. Sense is associated with the logical meaning of what we imagine or conceive.

One short paragraph - yet so much unpacking is needed.

Q1) What is doing the interpreting - and where? The mind? But the mind already has the idea?

Mind, idea and interpretations thereof are all functions of the soul.

Q2) Why is a further interpretation needed?

The need for any interpretation is only a requirement of the soul.

Q3) As you are saying further interpretation is needed then what is an “idea in our mind” prior to deriving its meaning through interpretation?

Ideas are generated and constructed by thought. Meanings and interpretations are associated with and attached to ideas by introspective meditations upon the mental processes involved in formulating new ideas.

Q4) You have said meanings are derived from interpretations of ideas, but you have not clearly defined what you mean by meaning. Could you define meaning please?

Meaning means whatever you, some dictionary or epistemological system of organized knowledge means to you.

Q5) Are logical meanings the same thing as meanings - or do you mean something different?

Logical interpretations mean different things to different people in various times and places.

Q6) You say sense is associated with logical meaning, - are you saying sense is logical meaning, or something else found in association with logical meanings.

Could be any combination of the above.

Q7) When you say meanings are derived from interpretations of ideas in our mind - you seem to be saying that meanings issue from our minds, and not the world/reality in which the mind inhabits. Do you mean this?

Since various philosophers and mathematicians have different takes on this, I would venture to say that the human capacity for determining meaning can be based on either a prior or a posteriori knowledge.

Reducing real concepts and ideas to a meaningless framework only adds to the problem of understanding and relating the knowledge we have in our minds to anything constructive or concrete in reality.

Hmmm. Ok…so you think the problem of squaring knowledge in our minds as it relates to reality can be better solved by a mind that generates meanings from within itself/soul, rather than meanings being formed by that reality. Thus we know what is “out there” by way of just thinking up stuff from …no where. How is this a better approach than to say meanings are the conditions “our there” that make our propositions true or false.

The latter is a form of what mathematicians, ideologists and metaphysicians would call naive realism since numbers, words and ideas have no physical reality until applied to the physical universe by human beings.

And why is the alternative you are rejecting a “meaningless framework”?
?

Any epistomological system of human knowledge which reduces mental and spiritual activity to materialistic functions of the brain alone reduces man's potential for self-knowledge to unknown biological factors which according to evolutionary theory are the products of random mutations being guided by no form of higher intelligence or reason than that within the meaningless framework of natural selection alone.

[Cathar1950]

I see material functions allow us to expand to areas that you call spiritual and mental.
You have it backwards do to your lack of an adequate epistemological system.
The only one that seems to be doing the reducing is you. Your lack of understanding limits you.

[jcrawford]

I see material functions allow us to expand to areas that you call spiritual and mental.

Spiritual and mental functions allow you to concieve of and differentiate between that which is material, mental and spiritual. For instance, numbers and mathematics are not material yet through our spiritual and mental powers, we can apply such metaphysical formulae to measurements of the material universe.

You have it backwards do to your lack of an adequate epistemological system.

Van Til's Theory of Knowledge is as valid as any other. What theory of knowledge do you believe in or subscribe to?

The only one that seems to be doing the reducing is you.

The reduction of mental and physical phenomena to their elementary constituents is one of the functions of good science.

Your lack of understanding limits you.

Perhaps you can demonstrate how mathematical concepts and logical systems are formed and conceived of in the brain for our colleagues.