The Forlorn Quest for the Immaterial Soul

[mikespenard]

http://www.memeoid.net/books/Spenard/Sp ... -DRAFT.pdf

An attempt at explaining, comprehensively, the likelyhood for there to be souls, spirits, ghosts etc. of a non-physical nature. And a hint of an alternative way to think about the mind and self. For those interested in such topics. Briefly, the essay attempts to tackle the idea of mind-brain duality; the idea of a physical body and an immaterial mind, i.e. 'substance dualism'. It starts off with a brief historical account, then ventures into analysis from physics, biology and then a linguistic and conceptual look. It's a conglomeration of various arguments from philosophy of mind, squished into a /somewhat/ brief form. And with hopefully some semblance of flow and skill.

[curiosityandthecat]

[Will]

If you could boil that down just a bit, I'd be much obliged.

[mikespenard]

If you could boil that down just a bit, I'd be much obliged.

Well, I had done that in the past: tried to present each argument bit by bit. But due to overlapping points, and people shotgunning the thread, it was impossible to present any sort of developed argument. Ergo, the essay. Instead I'll let people pick what they take issue with and then try to address it.

It wouldn't hurt to post the intro however:
WHAT IS IT THAT YOUR NAME NAMES? Try pointing to that which is you. You will find that a nose, eye or forehead quickly gets in the way. Then, pealing these back and tossing them aside, you will find yourself being able to only point to the various parts of your brain that go about working on the distributed task of making you... you. After sorting through various clusters of flesh, bone, tissue and grey matter, and then turning ones gaze aside to the body asunder, a portentous observation is staring you in the face. Where have you gone? And who, or what, will file one’s own missing person’s report?
.
.
.
We have strong intuitions that push on our minds and pull on our hearts when dealing with these questions. Your experiencing self seems to converge at, and then emanate from, the center of somethingâ€"the problems start when we ask what this might be. To answer these questions we must push reason as far as it will go and instill in ourselves a desire to delve beneath appearancesâ€"to steer clear of man made cages for the mind of man.


And to add a table of contents:
1) General description of what Descartes thought about the mind
2) Brief history of the idea, how it predates him and is still in wide use.
3) An argument against the idea that mental contents are exclusive and can not be objectively determined; that the one's self is the absolute authority on what is before one's mind.
4) An argument showing how conceivability arguments are void and suffer from a lack of pragmatism and inductive reasoning.
5) An argument from the perspective of physiology and biology (there's no cartesian theater, no cartesian stop, and what pathology tells us)
6) A historical account of Ryle and linguistic analysis; how it cannot refute dualism in of itself, but it can still raise our awareness to egregious missuses of terms, and show who the burden lies with: the linguistic innovator.
7) A summary of these points, how dualism creates an 'explanatory regress' which makes it count as giving up on the inquiry, a positive account of an alternative 'bundle theory'.

[AlP]

She's claiming she wrote the essay (actually a book). She's not Michael Spenard (the author of the linked book). The opening paragraph and first sentence of second paragraph are in one writing style (with lots of errors). The remainder are different. Troll.

[curiosityandthecat]

Troll.

[mikespenard]

She's claiming she wrote the essay (actually a book). She's not Michael Spenard (the author of the linked book). The opening paragraph and first sentence of second paragraph are in one writing style (with lots of errors). The remainder are different. Troll.

Huh, not sure what you are talking about? She?