When did you finally accept the separation of body and soul?

When did you finally accept the separation of body and soul?

Never! If the soul exists, it's only a different kind of body

When none of the other explanations made any sense

How come? Elaborate senpai

Will they ever tho? I wonder if it's only a matter of scientific development till something of a mind/soul could be identified, since science in itself is a formal logic process, it is a method and pertain to res extensa

>Will they ever tho

Very possible, quantum mechanics is turning the foundations of reality into some really memey shit so I don't put a spit of trust in any current claims of material reducibility

What is the soul?

Thats like asking what is matter. It just is

Matter can be identified. Your chair is composed of matter. The body is matter. There are things that aren't matter that can be identified. Sight, hearing, touching and object, feeling an objects weight, the air on your skin, pleasure from cool air or pain from warm air.

You said that the soul is separate from the body. I know what the body is, but what is this "soul?" Is it sight? Or feeling pleasure? Or a sense of responsibility for something?

It just is dude, its just there. Just the way matter is just there

I see matter, I can touch my chair, I can hear it when I knock on it, I could taste it if I wanted it to. Senses point to what is on the outside of my body, that which is identified by my sense is "just there" and I call it matter. I don't sense any "soul" out there so is it on the inside of my body? I feel hungry, is that my soul? How about the desire to procreate or for intimacy?
Is the soul always there? If it is can you point it out to me? Or does it exist sometimes and sometimes not, if yes then when?

Nah see you are your soul, its through which all other experiences get their "thereness"

OP here, I'm not btw

What I mean by soul is the same as what I would refer to as "mind". It's everything that is derived from conscious experience but that is not a direct result of biological mechanisms (such as the examples you mentioned, senses and all).

Animals have senses like we do, but they are bound to their biological inclinations, and so far don't seem to have the ability to abstract nor do they have a consciousness.

Put it this way, the soul/mind is what you would get when subtracting the inner workings of the animal from the inner workings of the human.

Ok, so to experience is to say that an object acts upon the soul. How about acting?

I experience my chair, it acts upon my soul. I act upon my chair by picking it up, is it the soul that acts upon my chair or is it my body? If it is my body, and the soul is only the "experiencing" mechanism, does the soul command the body?

Reading Aristotle 12 years ago.

I think the causation is irrelevant, what matters is identification. It is the nature of the soul to identify

Referring to pavlov. An animal hears a bell and begins salivating. They salivate because the sound conjures the image of meat. "Meat" is an image conjured from memory and not something received directly from the senses, it is an abstraction. Animals can abstract, by if you mean by abstraction that they can imagine something not given to them by direct experience. But honestly we can't say what the limitations are to an animals abstraction. To have a mind is to create an image of the world that we live in, to be able to pick out what is dangerous or valuable. Or even to have a sense of responsibility for something, an animal for their young. These things are abstractions that all minds possess, animals and humans.

I don't see a difference between an animals mind and mine, I don't see a difference between a toddlers mind and mine. They work the same way.

Are you telling about complex abstraction? Like mathematics or to be able to group 'like' things by abstracting a similarity between them? If yes then don't animals do the same. They sense groups of matter called 'food' or 'humans' or 'more food' and 'less food' just like toddlers. Only a qualitatively different consciousness.

>matter is composed of fields/ energy you can't feel or touch or see
>our behavior is dictated by genes, molecules, neurons that alone contain incredible amounts of information
>chaos theory proved that mathematical regularity can be found even in the most complex systems; see the Feigenbaum constant

The materialism/ idealism dichotomy as you seem to put it is very outdated. "Ideas" are there and they can be grasped, but there isn't anything else besides.

To act with the body seems similar to discursive thinking. You've said that the soul is the experience, I'm just wondering if it acts as well. Like I said one can only act in two ways. Through discursive thinking and with the body. Is it the soul that acts in these two ways? Or does the soul only receive experience and not act?

I would say the soul is what turns mere causation into an act proper. I am sympathetic to Berkeley in this regard

> turns mere causation into an act proper

I'm not exactly sure what that means, can you give me an example?

Soul has no nature.
See Malebranche for the full enchilada, though you can also find it in Husserl.

Quite simply, the difference between I do and it does is that I experience myself making the decision.
If the causation is the exact between the two events it is irrelevant. Agency arrises with the experience of agency