BothAndBlog Forum

Mind, Soul, Spirit and Self: To What Extent Are These Concepts Useful or Not Philosophically?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... hically/p1

I am aware that there are possible clear attempts at definitions of soul, mind, spirit and self. However, while these may be interesting and useful, I am interested more in how such definitions and concepts inform the understanding of consciousness on a philosophical level. What do you think about the various concepts in the understanding of consciousness? Which of these concepts are more helpful or unhelpful in the twentieth first century climate of philosophical thought, especially in relation to the mind-body problem? — Jack Cummins

FWIW, I have explored that same question in several posts on the BothAnd Blog. The traditional terms you listed go back thousands of years. Which indicates that the Mind/Body distinction has always been important to philosophical thinkers. Until recently, that is. Modern materialists smugly simply the problem by asserting that the Mind is just the function of the Brain.

But then, what material is that "function" made of? My answer is that the fundamental element/substance of the real world is not solid Matter, but aethereal Information. It's not an empirical/physical solution, but a theoretical/metaphysical answer to the ancient conundrum of "how does Matter think & feel"? If you are interested in such enformed musings, I can provide some links for perusal. Here's a sample.

Self/Soul :
On the Thoughts Explained Blog*, “The Moral Skeptic” discusses a split-brain experiment that seemed to show that the human neural system can generate two separate minds. Thus, proving that there is no unique Soul existing apart from brain functions. That empirical evidence would indeed cast doubt on traditional notions of a spiritual Soul.
But it demonstrates what you would expect if the Enformationism concept of the emergent "Self" is correct : the Mind is merely an operational function of brain processes, a behavior, not a thing. As an essential part of the mind’s operations, the Self is an imaginary symbol, like an Avatar, to represent the system in its inter-actions with the outside world.
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page67.html
Note -- The Enformationism thesis postulates that Generic Information (power to enform ; causation ; energy/mass) is the essence of both Matter & Mind ; both Brain & Function.

Gnomon, remember you said, quite a number of times, that your Enformationism doesn't offer any soteriological services. I see an opening here. How exactly you'll work the idea of moksha into your theory is currently beyond me. — Agent Smith

Sorry, soteriological services are not on the menu for Enformationism. Instead, the default assumption, pending alternative evidence, is that this positive/negative world, this good/bad life is as good as it gets. As the semi-buddhist Stoics advised, all you have control over is your attitude (mind-set, philosophical framing) toward imperfect reality. Don't put your faith in a future Afterlife or Nirvana, just adapt your mind to your current situation. As Hamlet says to himself, as he contemplates self-salvation (suicide) : “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”. Of course, a defeatist attitude is only going to allow the bad to get worse. Yet an optimistic attitude will allow you to maneuver around the potholes in life's road.

The notion of Moksha (release from rebirth) is based on the hypothesis of physical Reincarnation. However, endless cycles of life are just as much a Hindu myth (taken on faith) as the Christian hope for a heavenly hereafter, with new spiritual bodies. Proponents of both a one-time eternal-life in Heaven, and of multiple lifetimes on Earth, must interpret the rare evidential events (e.g. remembrances of past lives ; near-death scenarios) with a generous helping of hopeless hope for salvation from the generational cycles of Evolution. But if human lives are naturally "brief candles in the dark" then some outside savior would be necessary to re-light the flame. However, Atheist Buddhism assumes no deity to correct his own creation mistakes, including tedious never-ending Samsara. So, why should we expect Nature to provide emergency exits for the life/death cycle that has been going-on from the beginning of mortal Life?

The Enformationism thesis admits the arguable possibility that the information complex (pattern, code) that constitutes your Self/Soul could be recycled by the Enformer, just as you can copy & paste information on your computer*1. But as far as I can see, such a redo is not included in the overall plan of Evolution. Unfortunately, such a re-boot would only be required if there was something seriously wrong with the pattern (of unique-but-perishable Souls) that has been unfolding for the last 14 billion solar cycles.

Historically, human sages have postulated a variety of incompatible natural or super-natural Plans of Salvation. Therefore, if your life is unsatisfactory, the only way out is self-salvation via a no-return exit. Hence, even the recently-posited godless Technological Singularity is based on the mythical belief that humanity as a whole, not as individuals, can gain control over the ups & downs of Nature by learning how to adjust the thermostat, to eliminate radical up & down swings. Unfortunately, for Samsara seekers, creating a techno-utopia on this "third rock", or another planet circling an alien sun --- would on benefit our descendants, not us progenitors..

Both Eastern reincarnation & Western heavenly hereafters are philosophical conjectures that seek to correct the imbalance & injustice of The Way It Is, via imaginary future scenarios. But, if God or Nature got it wrong in the first place, what hope do unruly humans have to expect a loop-hole that lets them out of the cosmic system. Besides, Divine Justice delayed is justice denied*3. As a middle path, the Tao is a dynamic balancing act, which allows us to move forward despite teetering between the abyss on left & right*3. The only salvation from fear of a disastrous fall, is in the calm Stoic mind of the tight-rope walker. This taut-wire we call Life is the only Path we have. So, don't look down. :joke:



*1. Technical Reincarnation :
The notion of downloading a person's definitive information into a computer, and then uploading the data to enform a new body (in a whirl of sparkles) in a new location was proposed as "The Transporter" in the Star Trek TV series. But the writers also philosophized about the negative effects of having your data accidentally scrambled : "is this new Self really me?" The downside of data errors was also dramatized in the movie "The Fly".

*2. Delayed Divine Justice :
Like the god of Job and the Stoics, the god of Neo-Deism is, for practical purposes, equivalent to implacable Nature, which has absolute power over all natural creatures. That's why humans gradually developed their own Culture, with man-made rules to suit their own needs and desires. Over the years, civilizations have become more & more estranged from Nature, in their attempts to escape its inhumane rewards & punishments. They have tried their best to create “Justice systems” that reward goodness, and punish bad behavior. The lesson here is to stop waiting for the impartial judge to impose justice from above, or for a Messiah or superhero to save us, but to work together toward a more ethical, stable and fair society. It’s up to us to level the playing field.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page60.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_d ... ice_denied

*3. Tao Balance :
Though often referred to as a religion, Taoism (or Daosim) isn’t similar to an organised religion whose tenants are based on a divine revelation for attaining a good afterlife. Instead Taoism, which expounds on the philosophy of the Tao – broadly translated as “way” or “path”, serves as a system of guidance for one to find balance and harmony with existence. This balance is summarised in Taoism’s Yin and Yang principle, which sees the world with complementary forces, such as light and dark, active and inert, or hot and cold.
https://asianinspirations.com.au/experi ... g-balance/
3 days ago

See, you do have the basic ingredients to weave some form of salvation into your Enformationism. Anyway, what I find intriguing is that in your theory the simulation is reality, making the idea of moksha moot. Your point seems to be that The Architect of The Matrix is your Enformer aka G*D. Remember what Agent Smith says to Morpheus - we rejected the first Matrix (no evil/paradise) for the current version of The Matrix (with evil)? That says a lot, oui? We're not actually interested in liberation/salvation. What then is the deal here? What exactly do we want? — Agent Smith

What do we want? As teleological-thinking beings, we want what we do not have, but can imagine : Perfection. We can envision a new improved simulation of reality, and we can try to work together to make our imaginary future Utopia into a here & now real Reality*1. Unfortunately for us Idealists, only the Architect of the Matrix controls the whole complex system from a central Nexus (the program of evolution). All we humans can do is fiddle with peripheral levers & dials of Nature. Which is what pragmatic scientists attempt to do . . . . with mixed results. We are only interested in Salvation from the less-than-ideal results of natural & cultural changes.

Each of us humans is an architect of our own simulation of Reality : our personal imaginary worldviews. The only problem with living in a private subjective simulation of an abstract Ideality, is that Nature has constructed a material world that is not so easily modified by the personal Soul/Mind to suit our individual preferences. Moreover, that external world is populated with other Avatars (Souls) that are playing by their selfish internal values. Thus, creating obstacles to our own little plans.

Why does the second simulation of Matrix/World incorporate Evil into its design*2? Logically, Progress (growth & learning) are impossible without empty space in which to evolve. Morally, that undefined space in between fixed mandates is optional (neutral). Hence, our individual selfish choices can have good or bad effects on the overall (objective) system. Literature is full of examples of Evil results caused by short-sighted choices. The Enformationism world was also designed to be autonomous, to find its own way into the future via trial & error. The errors are what we call "Evil" or "Bad" depending on degree of severity*3. Nature, like any computation, must deal with internal errors of Syntax (rule violations). But complex Culture is faced with errors of Semantics (meanings : values)

Presumably, the evolving Universe, viewed as an autonomous computer program (sovereign, self-determining, independent), is running on schedule ; with internal error corrections ; not knocked off course by our insignificant human glitches ; and not requiring maintenance & repair interventions by the IT-tech/Programmer. For us Avatars/Earthlings inside the cosmic program, the ups & downs of Hegelian dialectic are perceived as Good or Evil : relative to our own personally-plotted course into the future*4. Fortunately, the program includes exit visas (limited lifespan) to terminate the agony & ecstasy. Another way out (salvation) of this on-course cruise through time is via the Escape pod (esc button) of voluntary death (suicide). Or, you could hit ctrl-alt-del and reboot. However, in order to go to Heaven or Samsara, you'd have to create it first. From scratch. As your personal simulation.


*1. True Reality :
On the other hand, all humans are constantly exposed to reminders that the world we experience is both Real and Ideal. Yet, we instinctively know the difference between the material things out there, and our immaterial thoughts in here. We can distinguish between physical sensations, and our feelings about those perceptions. We easily discern the difference between public phenomena, and the private meanings or values of those sensory experiences. For empirical scientific purposes, those ideal aspects of the world can be safely ignored. But for theoretical personal reasons we have no other choice but to deal with the unreal.
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page30.html

*2. Designer Universe :
Even so, they may wonder why an ideal divine designer, working from scratch, would make an imperfect world with ongoing conflicts between good & evil, vestigial organs, and eyeballs with light receptors behind a veil of veins. The only logical answer to the Evil conundrum is that imperfections are inherent in a space-time fragment of Enfernity (Eternity/Infinity), and that defects are to be expected in the incomplete on-going creative process of evolution. Only in a transcendent changeless state-of-being could you presume to find absolute perfection and categorical Holiness; to find G*D. And you can’t expect that perfect BEING to act like an imperfect human designer, who makes mistakes from ignorance. Instead, you’d expect any “defects” to be intentional and necessary to the ultimate goal of the system. Hence, that teleological purpose would be known only to the Great Intender.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page49.html

*3. Evil is the failure of Perfection :
Smith said that the first Matrix was built to ensure that the people who were plugged into it did not experience any negative emotion, there was no suffering, everything was perfect.
He said it was a disaster, and it ultimately failed. The Architect said this too in the 2nd movie.
Why though? What exactly happened with that version of the Matrix that caused it to fail? Did the people who were plugged into it, eventually realize that everything was fake because they thought it was too good to be real? . . . .
The problem was choice.
https://www.reddit.com/r/matrix/comment ... trix_fail/

*4. Evil is the cost of Choice :
Olson makes a surprising admission that I agree with, "There is no evidence from nature and reason alone that God is good. Nor is there any evidence from nature or reason alone that the good life includes care for others unless it benefits oneself " . Indeed, his Old Testament god intervened frequently and directly in the affairs of his chosen people. But elsewhere in the world other cultures blamed miracles & calamities on their local gods. And in all times & places, bad things happened to good people, and vice-versa — as-if the gods were randomly pushing buttons on the control panel of their little domains. So I have concluded, not that the G*D of Nature is erratic or impotent, but that the old pre-scientific notion of gods as specific material causes of natural events, was off the mark. Instead, I think the creation was intended to be autonomous, with no divine interventions necessary to correct either natural or cultural mistakes.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html

PS__Quote from Quora :
Q. If the universe is a simulation, why did our ''masters'', or the person who is running this simulation, allow us to become smart enough to wonder if the universe was a simulation?
A. If the universe (or our perception of it) is in fact just some giant simulation (and, for the record, I do not discount that possibility as wildly crazy), then there must be a very good chance the whole point of the simulation is to see how long it takes us to reach self awareness.
Note : others have speculated that the Teleology of this simulation is to create Demigods. But I have no idea about the end goal (telesis) ; only the inference that physical/mental Evolution is causing the emergence of more physical complexity, which allows nonphysical concepts to emerge, some of which are teleological. So, it's reasonable to infer that the Great Simulator had the Potential for end-directed programming.

PPS__
"Goal-Driven Software Development Process (GDP) is an iterative and incremental software development technique. Although similar to other modern process models, GDP is primarily focusing on identifying goals before setting the requirements and explicitly utilizing the bottom-up design approach."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal-Driv ... nt_Process
Note -- From an information-centric perspective, Natural Evolution seems to be a "bottom-up" design process, as contrasted to the "top-down" approach of Genesis.

↪universeness

Anyway, in relation to Gnomon's dialectic there is no memory of the life in the womb as such; there is no event, nothing much happens; "there's absolutely no strife, living the timeless life". Birth is the antithesis of life in the womb, the first event, and awareness is the first synthesis. Thus is the problem of evil easily answered: without the pain and terror, there would be no awareness, no subjectivity. — unenlightened

I suppose what you're implying is that "pain is a necessary evil". Hence Evil is not optional for a learning & growing process. Positive & negative feedback are how we learn in a heuristic (trial & error) process. But a nudge in the right direction should be sufficient, so why the torment of cancer? What do we learn from pain without a lesson? Maybe bad things happen to good people, simply so we can learn that "God is no respecter of persons" (Romans 2:11). Without experience of Evil (Satan), we would not recognize Good (God) -- life would be meaningless. "No awareness, no subjectivity", no cognizance, no knowing. . . . no progress, no growth, no maturation.

Is pain a necessary evil? :
No. Pain is a vital function of the body to indicate something is wrong. Without pain, we’d leave our hands on hot stoves, or walk on nails. We’d never seek treatment for many life-threatening things. We may not even notice we’re injured, or that our appendix ruptured, etc. Pain is a very, very important part of life.
https://www.quora.com/Is-pain-a-necess