Note: I have changed the title of this post for the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with the term ‘substance dualism’.
Many of our readers – especially among the regulars at Uncommon Descent – are substance dualists. That is, they believe that each of us has an immaterial mind or soul that constitutes our true self, and that the body, including the brain, is merely a vehicle “inhabited” and controlled by the mind or soul.
There are many problems with this idea, which is why it is rejected by most neuroscientists and philosophers. One of the most striking is the problem posed by the strange characteristics of split-brain patients, as described in this video by VS Ramachandran:
Not only do the separate hemispheres exhibit distinct personalities and beliefs, as Ramachandran explains; they even have separate wills. I described this in a comment at UD a few years ago:
Even stronger evidence against the dualist position is provided by split-brain patients. There is a procedure, the corpus callosotomy, that disconnects the two hemispheres so that epileptic seizures cannot spread from one to the other. The hemispheres are only disconnected; neither is removed. This operation contains the seizures, dramatically improving the patient’s quality of life, but it also severs the path through which the hemispheres normally communicate. The results are fascinating, and they’re not very friendly to the dualist position:
a. In experiments with split-brain patients, it’s possible to pass information to one hemisphere but not the other. The left hemisphere literally doesn’t know what the right hemisphere knows, and vice-versa.
If there were a single, immaterial mind, it would know what both hemispheres know. Clearly, this doesn’t happen. As a dualist, how do you explain this? Surely the immaterial mind doesn’t split in two at the moment the corpus callosum is cut, does it?
These fascinating videos of a split-brain patient demonstrate the phenomenon:
b. The left hemisphere controls the right half of the body, and vice-versa. When the connection between the two is cut, this results in bizarre behaviors indicating the presence of two “wills” in the same skull.
One patient was seen to pick up a cigarette with her right hand and place it in her mouth. Her left hand plucked it out and threw it away before the right hand could light it.
In another case, a man attacked his wife with one arm while defending her with the other.
If a single immaterial mind were running the show, this would not happen. How do you explain this within the dualist framework?
The question is just as relevant now as it was then. Dualists, how do you reconcile these phenomena with your worldview without twisting yourselves into logical pretzels?
I read you arument at UD.
After reading it, I ask you: where do you get your assumptions from? And – I don’t agree with anything you assume.
I can only repeat myself:
You cannot proof anything with these experiments and you will have to wait until death shows you. On that I do agree.
There is no proof for these kind of things, either positive or negative.
(BTW, I am not what you seem to call a dualist, and I do not make bold to “know” anything. What I “know” is what I hear and read – besides that what occurs to me, which is of a direct dealing with that realm we call “reality”.)
I can repeat stereotypically only what I said above:
you cannot proof anything with these experiments and you will have to wait until death shows you. On that. I do agree.
No one as blind as he who does not will to see.
That refers to anyone, even to me and you.
Die grosse Täuschung der Moderne ist, dass die Naturwissenschaft uns alles erklärt. Die Naturwissenschaft beschreibt. Sie erklärt garnichts.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
(The big deception of modern times is that science explains everything. Science describes. Science explains nothing.)
You are flogging a straw man. No one in science claims science proves anything. Certainly not that science can prove a negative.
What science sometimes demonstrates is that a particular explanation or claim is wrong or vacuous. The claim of a soul is not wrong; it is vacuous.
someone else,
Those assumptions are typical for dualists, including most Christians. If you don’t agree with them, then I congratulate you. Perhaps your concept of the soul is more defensible than theirs.
What do you think the soul does? Is it merely the seat of consciousness?
FWIW Between neurohype and neuroskepticism.
At UD, vjtorley has posted a response to this thread and to comments I’ve made regarding the soul. His post is entitled
Do split-brain cases disprove the existence of an immaterial soul? (Part One)
I’m hoping that someone at UD will inform him that I’ve been banned, and that due to the UD moderator’s fear of open discussion, my responses to vj’s thread will have to be posted here.
Done.
After a first read of vjtorley’s post, my impression is that he and I agree on this: an immaterial soul of the kind I specified is disproven by the split-brain evidence.
However, he claims that most dualists do not posit the kind of soul I am arguing against. According to him, they would not agree with all of the assumptions upon which I based my argument:
Since most theists aren’t even aware of the split-brain phenomenon, they haven’t thought about #5 and #6. However, assumptions 1-4 are extremely common among theists. I certainly held them when I was a theist, and most theists with whom I’ve discussed the issue also hold them.
Also, many (if not most) theists would agree with a seventh assumption, which is that the soul can operate independently of the body (after death, for example).
I hope vjtorley will ask commenters to identify, by number, both the assumptions they agree with and the ones they disagree with. (I asked that question before I was banned, but commenters were reluctant to say, perhaps because they realized that my argument was fatal to their concept of the soul.)
Thanks, Neil.
Perhaps the immaterial soul doesn’t send commands so much as it provides guidelines.
I suppose I should copy the entire comment here:
petrushka,
That wouldn’t really help in the case I describe below. The soul knows that the word “dog” was flashed on the screen, so even if it only provided guidelines, per your suggestion, it would still be able to prevent the wrong answer from being chosen.
Also, there would be no difference in performance between the left hand and the right hand if a unified soul were involved, unless you assume that one of the hemispheres is completely disconnected from the soul (an assumption that creates problems of its own).
It will be interesting to see how vjtorley addresses the left vs. right performance difference in terms of his “thought control dualism”.
What is the real identity of a person? What it means by the terms consciousness, person, self and mind? First of all we should understand these terms very clearly. We mix up these terms without knowing or understanding what these terms refer to. They say that there are two persons in a split brain, two minds in a split brain, and two selves in a split brain. We should understand the different between mind and self. There may be two or many minds even in one brain if mind refers to thoughts, ideas, behaviors and experiences. So it is wrong to say that there are two minds in a split brain. Now we should understand what the terms self or person refers to. Is there one self in one brain (not a spit brain) always? If so, what is that self which exists in a physical body? Scientists say brain creates self. Do they know what is self? Really what is it? Is it thought or experience or behavior? If self or person refers to thought or experience or behavior then there may be many persons or selves even in one brain. Today I am good. Tomorrow I am bad. Are there two persons or two selves in me? Have I split brain? But according to some scientists there should be two persons in me which is a wrong concept. Through one brain many different thoughts arises. Behaviors change time to time. Emotions change moment to moment. Sensations change frequently. So how many persons present in one brain? Are there two persons or two selves in a split brain? What is the meaning of multiple personality? Why do we say multiple personality?
First of all we should understand the real nature of a person or being. To understand the real identity of a person we should find out what I am really. Without knowing what I am, we say that there is no God or soul. We also should understand what it means by atheism or theism? Whether atheist or theist both do not know whether God exists or not. They just believe. Atheism or theism is only a belief or thought or idea or image. How can we identify a belief or a thought or an idea or an image as a person or being? Dr Ramachandran identified a thought or belief as a person or being. Dr Ramachandran identifies a thought or belief as a person or being because atheism and theism are ideas or beliefs. This is a very serious mistake. See how many ideas and images we have. Do all those ideas refer to persons? Today we may believe in God. Tomorrow we may not believe in God. A person is identified by his belief and he is called as an atheist or theist. We identify a person by his belief and say he is an atheist or theist. What a wrong thing? What a misleading concept? Atheism and theism are false identification. One who says that I am an atheist carries a false label. Dr Ramachandran identifies a false label as a person or being and misleads the people by his wrong concepts and false conclusions. Dr Ramachandran may know something more about brain by the study of the patients with damage brain. That doesn’t mean what he says is true. Even a man with a perfect brain, not with a split brain may have two opposite beliefs under various situations. For some reasons he may believe in God and for some reasons he may not believe in God. So according to Dr Ramachandran he is an atheist and at the same time he is a theist. But there are no two persons or beings in his existence. Sometime we may have two contradictory ideas at a same time. For example one thought may say “do that” and another thought may say “not to do that”. May be, there are two minds in one existence. But are there two beings? So it is wrong to say that there are two persons in a split brain. This is a wrong concept in modern Neuroscience. We cannot come to any conclusions from what a patient with a split brain say about his belief. Neuro scientists are unable to cure many serious brain diseases. They are unable to solve the problem of sorrow of death and fear of death. But they come with serious conclusions to fundamental problems and give talks and write books on God and soul without knowing the truth of all existence.
There are no two persons in a split brain. This is a wrong concept in modern Neuroscience. When the brain is divided the memory which contains all our beliefs and experiences will also get disturbed. So the being or person encounters problem in coordinating and expressing. When our leg is broken we cannot walk properly. Similarly when our brain is damaged or divided we cannot communicate properly. How does Dr Ramachandran know that there are two persons or beings in a split brain? To know that he should understand the reality of person or being. Neurologists can only hear what comes from the mouth of a person. They cannot know what is being felt or experienced inside. What is person? Does he know the real identity of a person? Real identity doesn’t mean the name, the colour, the appearance, the position, the behavior, belief etc. Person or self means the inner being which receive all sense of experiences. What is atheism? What is theism? Atheism and theism are both beliefs. Only ideas recorded in the brain. There is no person or being as atheist or theist. If you identify you with an idea then your idea is your being. If you identify you with your body then your body is your being. If you identify you with your position then your position is your being. If you identify you with your emotions or feelings then your emotions or feelings are your being. But these identifications are false. Only imaginations not the real being or person. First of all we should understand what is person or being. Dr Ramachandran doesn’t know the reality of a person or being. He identifies an idea or belief as person or being. Because atheism is a belief. That is his serious mistake due to lack of understanding of his inward existence. We may change our beliefs. But the real person or being remain the same.
We also should understand what it means by atheist or theist.
Atheism and theism are only imagination. To understand the true nature of person or being or self we should ask the right question. What is the right question? Does Dr Ramachandran know the right question? What am I? He should ask himself what he is. If you understand what you are then you will know how many persons are in a split brain. Without knowing what I am, we say that there are two persons in a split brain. Because nobody including the Neuro scientists knows what they are. They are still struggling to understand the reality of consciousness. So how can they talk about what really existsis inside a split brain?
A.Sriskandarajah
This is not correct. Theism is a belief in a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief. There is no objective, empirical evidence for any god or gods, so atheists see no need to act as though such entities exist.
The usual comparisons are “bald is not a hair color” or “not collecting stamps is not a hobby.”
This is rote nonsense. Many atheists actively insist that there is no god. Atheism at least encompasses both strong and agnostic versions, if not more. Patrick’s particular views cannot be taken as representative of all atheists.
Furthermore, IMO anyone that makes the universal claim that there is no objective, empirical evidence for any god is in fact exhibiting strong atheism – the kind that actively insist that no god exists.
Does Patrick have all the evidence? Is Patrick qualified to assess such evidence? Has he done so? Does he have knowledge about every god that was ever believed in, and have access to all facts and data pertaining to claims about such gods?
Perhaps Patrick would like to support his assertion that there is no objective, empirical evidence for any god or gods?
I doubt it.
You ought to know, William that it is impossible to prove a negative such as there are no gods of any sort to be found anywhere, especially those gods that hide from us by being invisible and never interacting with reality. Who is to say the god in your head is not real? Patrick can’t disprove it, neither can anyone else.
On the other hand there is absolutely no demonstrable evidence for the god in your head and plenty of evidence that humans are credulous and like to make up stories. I’d even concede, for the sake of argument, that one can make a (terrible) argument for the existence of some god: Craig’s argument or the “EANN” for instance” but what we don’t get from these arguments is any entailments or attributes. Craig, Plantinga and WJM just supply attributes from their own heads. That little leap from attribute-free god to personal god is a leap of faith.
Gods don’t seem to do anything these days, no dead being raised, no seas being parted, no water into wine. It seems as if they aren’t really there.
Hi Sriskandarajah,
Welcome to TSZ.
If ‘mind’ merely referred to those things, then each of us would have thousands of minds.
We can say that there are two separate minds in a split-brain patient for the same reasons that we can say that your mind is separate from mine.
How do we know that you and I don’t share the same mind? Because
a) I can know things that you don’t know, and vice-versa;
b) I can believe things that you don’t believe, and vice-versa;
c) I can desire things that you don’t desire, and vice-versa;
d) I can do things that you don’t do, etc.
The same criteria apply to the hemispheres of the split-brain patient, and they yield the same result: two separate minds.
My subject is about split brain and person and the wrong concept made by Dr Ramachandran. My subject is not about God. Why do you all worried about God and soul? Why do you all search for evidence for the existence of God and soul? Don’t you accept that you exist? Do you need any evidence for your existence? Your existence is very important. You are all talking about God. Do you know what you are. First find out what you are. Then you will understand whether God or soul exist or not. You cannot find any evidence for God because what ever you search is within the area of your memory. You are all project your imaginations about God. First of all find out yourself what exists within you. Understand very clearly what you are. Unnecessary arguments will serve nothing. Only exchange of words.
A.Sriskandarajah
Sriskandarajah,
Patrick was responding to your statement:
You brought it up. Why shouldn’t Patrick respond?
You are quite right. There is in fact strong evidence for some gods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Under FSM, the evidence for evolution appears to show that the FSM does not exist, therefore supporting the existence of the FSM. As that belief is a part of FSM the evidence of evolution directly supports the existence of the FSM.
So yes, when you define god as “that which fine tuned the universe” and when you note that the universe appears to be “fine tuned for life” that’s “evidence” for that god.
The assertion that there is no objective, empirical evidence for any god or gods is supported by the lack of objective, empirical evidence for any god or gods.
Unless, of course, you have some?
It’s a good thing nobody asked him to. Straw man, much?
I challenge you to support your assertion that there is “absolutely no demonstrable evidence for the god in [my] head”.
Please support these assertions as well.
You’ve simply restated the original assertion. Please support your assertion that there is a lack of objective, empirical evidence for any god or gods.
It’s not my job to disprove your as-yet unsupported assertion. It is your job to support it.
I’ve tried to find some. I did not. Therefore there is a lack. I have spent all my life open to the possibility of such evidence. So far, nothing.
Oh? I thought your job was to work as little as possible to support your current lifestyle?
But I’ve played this game before. I note there is no evidence that ESP is real. You point to studies of ESP. That no such study unambiguously shows any effect is neither here nor there to you. Your original claim is stated in such a way that you can always back away from it. There are studies about mediumship is your claim, not that the dead can be contacted.
Very thin gruel.
That you bother to chase me down the rabbit hole of negative evidence speaks volumes as to your ultimate intent here.
You wrote:
and I responded by pointing out that it is impossible to demonstrate that there is no such evidence anywhere at all; only that there is no evidence to support the existence of the various deities currently on offer. Various analogies exist on this point; Russell’s teapot, Sagan’s dragon in his garage and, as OM points out, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Read my comment. I said as clearly as I could that I can’t. And nor do I need to, until you want to put some entailments to your proposal.
But that’s not what I was quoted and responded to. I was responding to this, which I quoted before responding:
I didn’t ask anyone to prove that there is no god; I asked those who assert that there was no evidence to support their assertion. That’s why your response is a straw man.
However, you admit that you nor Patrick cannot support your assertions. This is why Patrick’s claim that atheism merely means “lack of belief” (besides being definitionally wrong) is obviously untrue even in his case; those who simply lack a belief in a thing don’t go around making universal, unsupportable negative assertions about that thing as if they are certain that thing doesn’t exist.
Your personal, anecdotal story of being unable to find such evidence is not evidence that such evidence is lacking. Unless, of course, you’re now accepting personal, anecdotal stories as acceptable evidence in favor of an assertion?
I would say that one of the marks of zealotry is the habit of making universal assertions that one has no capacity to support.
Certainly not when you flat-out admit that you cannot.
No, I think I’ll leave that to you and your cancer curing faith healer.
Shrug. What you say is of little consequence beyond these digital walls. Mark this one down as a victory for you, if you like.
But, then again, as I do not have free will (according to one WJM), what other outcome could there ever have been?
As a side note, I went to a very religious school. A school run by Monks in fact.
If they had some objective, empirical evidence for any god or gods I’m fairly sure they would have trotted it out at some point. They never did….
And given that their order had been around for some time they had plenty of opportunity.
That’s what I’d expect as well. Human beings have worshipped over 3,000 gods. If there were objective, empirical evidence for any of them, their adherents would be shouting it from the rooftops.
Instead, we get lectures on the “virtue” of faith. Very telling.
I hope Sriskandarajah wasn’t a drive-by. I’d like to discuss the soul with him.
Hi Keiths.
I understand your explanation. Good.
I may have two minds in the sense that I have two different ideas or two different believes. But I am aware of all my ideas, believes and feelings.
Your mind is separate from my mind. That is true. Because only you are aware of your feelings and thoughts which are only for you. Only I am aware of my thoughts and feelings which are only for me. So, do you say such separation of minds exists in a split brain?
In a split brain nobody knows really what is happening inwardly. The inner being which uses one part of the brain may be aware of what he believes and what he talks. Other part of the brain without a inner being or soul if you want to use the term may talk unconsciously like a robot which has no sense of awareness. First of all we should understand the real nature of our own existence. What am I? If I can find the answer to this question then we will know what really exist in a split brain. Does Dr Ramachandran know what he is really?
Hi Keiths.
I understand your explanation. Good.
I may have two minds in the sense that I have two different ideas or two different beliefs. But I am aware of all my ideas, beliefs and feelings.
Your mind is separate from my mind. That is true. Because only you are aware of your feelings and thoughts which are only for you. Only I am aware of my thoughts and feelings which are only for me. So, do you say such separation of minds exists in a split brain?
In a split brain nobody knows really what is happening inwardly. The inner being which uses one part of the brain may be aware of what he believes and what he talks. Other part of the brain without a inner being or soul if you want to use the term may talk unconsciously like a robot which has no sense of awareness. First of all we should understand the real nature of our own existence. What am I? If I can find the answer to this question then we will know what really exist in a split brain. Does Dr Ramachandran know what he is really?
Sriskandarajah,
Right, as in the expression “I’m of two minds about it.” Of course we don’t literally mean that we have two minds, just that we’re conflicted.
Exactly, which is why we consider you to be a single person — a single mind. In split-brain patients, one hemisphere is not aware of all of the ideas, beliefs, and feelings of the other hemisphere. They are separate minds, just as you and I are.
Yes, and that is what the experiments show. The left hemisphere can remember, believe, desire, and do things that that the right hemisphere doesn’t, and vice-versa. Not only that, but the left hemisphere will actually come up with bogus explanations of what the right hemisphere does.
That is a possible explanation, but only if you believe that the soul has no function other than providing awareness. Most theists (and particularly Christians) are uncomfortable with that idea, because they want the soul to be responsible for our thoughts, words, and behaviors, not just a passive spectator.
keiths,
Thank you. You have a clear understanding. You explain well.
I understand the meaning of the term soul. But generally I do not want to use this name because I know people have different interpretation. Some people accept. Some people not. Really that is not the problem whether soul exists or not or what soul is. Although they deny the existence of soul really they don’t know anything deeper of their own existence. The real question is what I am. Because we are aware that we exist. I know very well that I exist now and existed since my birth. No doubt. No need of any evidence.
Keith. You didn’t explain my last questions.
What am I? It is a general question . Not referring to me but applicable to all. Why do Neurologists like Dr Ramachandran come to wrong conclusions without understanding what they are.
As I said earlier I don’t want to use the name soul and I don’t say there is soul. But obviously there is an inner being other than the brain in all physical existence consist of cells. I want to use the term “inner being”. Please also explain this last para.
Sriskandarajah,
Thank you.
That’s why I was careful, in the OP, to specify the kind of soul I was talking about:
Sriskandarajah:
It’s very important to Christians who believe that the soul lives on after death and is rewarded or punished for its actions during this life.
I’m not attempting to give a complete account of personal identity, and neither is Ramachandran. What we are pointing out is that the conventional idea of a soul — an immaterial entity that inhabits and controls the body — is falsified by the split-brain evidence.
What is the function of this “inner being”? You’ve indicated that it is the seat of awareness, but does it play any other role?
keiths,
Many of our readers – especially among the regulars at Uncommon Descent – are substance dualists. That is, they believe that each of us has an immaterial mind or soul that constitutes our true self, and that the body, including the brain, is merely a vehicle “inhabited” and controlled by the mind or soul
Incidentally keiths, I am a Christian and I am very dubious about the existence of an immaterial soul, and for the purposes of debate at least am never a substance dualist. On a certain level, I truly do not believe in immaterial spirits. But then, some of the stuff on Celebrity Ghost Stories is kind of compelling.
JT,
That’s interesting. Do you believe in an afterlife?
I know that some Christians believe in a bodily afterlife, but they think that they are “asleep” between the time of their death and their bodily resurrection. Is your view something like that?
keiths,
I do believe in an afterlife. As of now, I essentially hold that when you die, your consciousness just ceases, and that at the Resurrection “the righteous” become essentially eternal gods — Sons of God specifically — analogous to Christ. Christ paid the debt for sin, but we will be on par with him in a sense for eternity. I believe our future selves are watching us right now, and can also time travel. I think its possible that in fact the angels mentioned in the Bible are these resurrected glorified human beings, just going wherever they want in space-time, for example ministering to pre-resurrected humans on earth. For various reasons, I believe that references to spirits in the Bible was just the Bible accomodating preexisting beliefs about spirits, that stemmed from people’s observations regarding air and wind, and the fact that when a person stopped breathing he died (i.e. his “Spirit” left him). I also think that incidents of hauntings are possibly damned individuals from the future (i.e. post Resurrection).
Also, I do not believe there were any anthropomorphic beings in existence until they emerged “by chance” via evolution. Otoh, time-travel by Christ and the other resurrected “Sons of God” complicates that picture.
JT,
Most of that doesn’t make sense to me, but the part about consciousness ceasing at death does. You’re one step ahead of the substance dualists in that regard.
Do you believe that “the righteous” freely choose to be righteous, and that justice is served when they are resurrected as “Sons of God”, but their unrighteous brethren are not?
keiths,
I do not believe in free will. Free will seems to me to equate to randomness. I believe the Son’s of God are predestined as such, as well as the eternally condemned. Basically, the Bible seems to explicitly and repeatedly teach this, and it is a “feel-good” obliviousness of the modern church to deny it. (e.g. see Romans 9:18-9:24). I guess there’s no reason to water down the Bible for an audience here who seem to have basically rejected it anyway. Seems like someone could look at predestination and still decide “I’m going to be on the winning side.” Everyone here can look at my comments as quaint sectarianism if they want, I don’t care. Cheers.
You’re not uncomfortable with the (im)morality of a God who predestines some to eternal condemnation?
keiths,
You’re not uncomfortable with the (im)morality of a God who predestines some to eternal condemnation?
It has something to do with him displaying his righteousness — there are winners and losers. No, I don’t claim to fully understand it. Otoh, there are people that honestly, just go astray from birth. I mentioned that book yesterday “Life Code” by Dr Phil (who frankly before I read it, didn’t know he had anything worthwhile) but its a detailed study of the sociopathic personality type, people that are inherently predators and imposters and frankly don’t think like you and me. And the book describes how prevalent they are everywhere. And often those types of people SUCCEED in life. And, its almost as if Providence lets them succeed, because considering their terrible eternal destiny, they have to be given a little time in the sun. And also I guess they are given some window to repent. As far as whether people who never heard about Christ or never acknowledge him as “Lord and Savior” are automatically damned, I cannot say for certain I believe that. I do believe that everyone who is saved, is saved because Christ paid the penalty for their sins on the Cross. A complicating factor for me (and other Church members) is that the Bible has been filtered through official Church Orthodoxy ingrained into us over the years, and its something of a challenge to go back to the Bible itself and determine for yourself just how much of that official church orthodoxy is true.
JT,
My question is whether you’re comfortable with it. I think a God who predestines people to eternal damnation is immoral. I wouldn’t be comfortable worshipping such a God. Are you?
Do you think that “a little time in the sun” compensates for an eternity of torment?
If they don’t have free will — and you say they don’t — then they can’t freely choose whether to repent or not. How is it just to punish someone eternally for a choice that was preordained by God?
It’s true that the Church is a mess, but so is the Bible. How do you decide which parts of the Bible are true?
Hi Keiths,
Now we have arrived at the very important subject “Awareness or Consciousness”. Before discussing this subject I want to make you clear why I want to know what I am. Because there is a very serious problem which I want to solve by understanding my real existence. What is our real problem? Personally we may have a lot of problems. But there is a common problem which is sorrow of death. You aware of the grieving people in China who lost their loved ones in the plane crash. It is an example. But every moment people have been facing this problem all over the world. Can any Scientist solve the problem of sorrow of death? Whether atheist or theist or naturalist or skeptic nobody wants to die, to come to an end.
You and I are separate persons because there is separate awareness in both of us. This is the subject still Neuro scientists do not know exactly what it is and how it arises. Now you have to look inwardly. You have to explore on your own. No need to refer to any Scientist or any books or beliefs or split brain. If you observe inwardly you will see that there is only one particular individual awareness. I could not put this in a correct form. I think that you understand what I say. It is very important in the journey to understand our existence. It is not a journey like travelling to other planets.
I don’t say that there is no soul. I know what it means. But people like atheist or skeptic are uncomfortable with the name soul. So I don’t want to use the name soul.
Now you ask the function of inner being. Very good question. You don’t need to scan your brain to know that. Simple answer is “You are the inner being”. It is you. You are the soul if anyone wants to use the name soul. It is very interesting subject because this will only solve the serious problem of sorrow of death. What is the role of the inner being? Don’t you know your role? You want to exist. You don’t want to die. You don’t want to have bad feelings. So when you have pain you go to the hospital. When you are hungry you want to eat something to end the feeling of hungry. You also want good feelings. So to get good feelings you eat tasty foods. You want to have sex. So many things are available to get good feelings. Death creates the fear and sorrow which is also a very bad feeling. But we do not know how to overcome this feeling. We may temporarily escape by a way. That is not the real solution. So we want to know what will happen after we die and whether there is after life. It is natural. No need to become a skeptic or atheist or materialist or dualist.
The question is “What is that inner being?” That is why I put a question in other way what you are. When see a light very far away we are sure that there is some kind of existence. But we do not know really what it is. Similarly there is an existence which is inner being. But we don’t know the reality of that existence. If we could find the real nature of our inner being then the truth will reveal whether it will die with the death of our cells. Then only we come to know there is afterlife and we are deathless. This body is subject to disintegration and death. The inner being or if anyone wants to use the name soul use this body to live a life.
Why do I say that there should be an inner being in this physical structure ? That is my next question.
I think you are going to have to die to find your answer.
The existence of pain and sorrow does not imply a solution, any more than poverty implies free buckets of money.
Sriskandarajah,
That’s not quite true. People do sometimes wish to die, for various reasons.
Not just awareness. Also separate knowledge, memories, desires, beliefs, personalities, and so on.
I’m a meditator, so I appreciate the value of introspection. However, it has its limitations, and one of those is that it can be quite inaccurate. What we think is going on in our minds is often quite different from what is really going on, and it is science that is best placed to get to the bottom of the discrepancy.
I actually like the word ‘soul’, but I usually put the word ‘material’ in front of it to prevent confusion and to emphasize that there is nothing ghostly about it. It’s a physical phenomenon, and all indications are that it comes to an end when the body dies.
An important clue is that our awareness vanishes in certain situations, for example when we are under anesthesia. If the soul is immaterial, then why should awareness depend so totally on the physical brain?
That’s where things will get interesting, because I think the evidence shows us that the body is the whole show. There is no “ghost in the machine” — no immaterial soul, or “inner being”, inhabiting the body.
Keiths,
1 You say that there is no inner being. May be. But do you say that there is no “you”. In the first instance I had asked you the question “What are you?” You know that there is no inner being or soul or whatever it is. You have found that. Good. But why don’t you know what you are. Are you your name and position? Are you your beliefs, concepts and conclusions? Are you your physical body? Are you your appearance? Are you your emotions and feelings? Are you your thoughts? Are you your memory? Are you the neurons in the brain? Are you brain process? You say that there is no ghost in the machine. I know that somebody has said that. You are also repeating that. When I used the term inner being you want to see yourself as a separate existence as soul or inner being. That is the struggle and trouble which makes you to think of ghost to say thatthere is no inner being. You can’t see you as a separate existence.
2 No problem if there is no soul or inner being. It is good to exist without the burden of the memory of a soul or inner being. But I don’t have the burden. We exist. That is enough. But don’t you accept still that you exist without a soul or inner being? But I am asking you not about inner being but about you. You exist. So my question is “what are you”? You are important not the soul or inner being. I don’t mean your name, race, color, physical appearance, your academic status or position. These things make your identity. Today a man is theist. Tomorrow he may become an atheist. But still he exists. Not going to die tomorrow with the end his belief as a theist. When I used the term inner being you wanted to see what it is. It is you. Where can you find it? So you refer it to your memory which contains records of past events and experiences. Somebody has said “There is no ghost in the machine”. It is in your memory. So you repeat that there is no ghost in the machine.
3 The body is the whole show means that the body is base for all of our sensations and the sensations make everything including this world. But do you know how sensations arising through the brain. How does a sensation like pain, hungry, smell, taste arise from the material molecules? You say that the body is the whole show. So you should know the answer. Please tell me.
4 What do you mean by material and immaterial? Both are your interpretations of your sensations. According to an atheist there is no God, no soul, and no inner being. So according to an atheist what really exist? Is it matter?
Atheist should know very well about the reality of matter. So I want to ask the following questions.
What is matter and how matter came in to existence?
Can matter exist independent of our consciousness? If so what is the evidence?
Is matter really exist or appear to exist?
You say that there is no inner being. That is also true in the sense really the inner being exists in a form of nothingness. That is the beauty of its existence. Really nameless. No material. No immaterial. It is very difficult to understand unless you free yourself from all kind of beliefs which limits the mind. I think that you are an atheist. You are conditioned to the ideas of atheism. To understand anything we should be free from all kind of conclusions which condition our mind.
Please answer all my questions.
Petrushka,
You are misunderstood. No need to die to find the answer. It is only possible while we are living. I think you didn’t understand my question.
Sriskandarajah,
A lot of your comments end up getting posted twice. Do you know why that’s happening?