This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What is the difference between Mind and Soul?
Lately I've been asking myself a lot about the differences between Mind and Soul... I started by the basic definition from a thesaurus, both definitions came to be in conclusion "that incorporeal, non material something someway linked to the body which is the essence of it"... Some dictionaries even use mind and soul as synonymous words... But iI have an insight that this are two different things, I would like to know what other people think about this and what conclusions have they made about this topic.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Sean Wolf
The mind is the collection of processes that allow you to function, awake and asleep, consciously and subconsciously.
The soul is what we used to call the mind, before we realized it was the mind and when we were absent of the pursuit of self-reflection, realization of the value of honest observation, and empirical data.
The mind operates in what we assume to be reality; the soul, as far as current evidence supports, anecdotally or otherwise, does not operate at all in any present model of reality.
Andrew Geliebter
Shawn Warren
If we truly do not ignore the majority of human experience, then we need to include the experience of proper reasoning, the empirical evidence that you admit "may be able to" argue against the existence of a soul, along with the anecdotal evidence you allude to, and decide for ourselves (weighting each contribution properly) whether or not to accept a proposition not supported by reason or the empirical evidence made available to us by human experience, but perhaps supported by certain experiences of certain people at certain times (this is the anecdotal). There is anecdotal evidence for nearly any proposition - there is a Santa.
I have to say I would not want you on the jury of any capital trial I might find myself...conviction based on anecdotal evidence...
This question is a very serious one to humanity and to individuals. It needs to be approached with a clear and sharp mind.
Cheers,
Shawn
Andrew Geliebter
Besides that, plenty of people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence. It's perfectly valid for making a case.
edward long 100+
Sean Wolf
Also, circumstantial evidence depends on inference and logic, which can only be allowed if all other elements of an argument are known or assumed to be true. You cannot base a conviction on circumstantial evidence alone, but it may be used in support of other known evidence. Since the soul has no known evidence other than personal or anecdotal, any circumstantial evidence, as in such an analogy, shouldn't hold up in a respectable court hearing.
Shawn Warren
To answer your first question, no. In turn I ask as a point of C & P, what does the phrase "experience WITH the transpersonal" mean?
As for openness, my very vocation is the apex of "open thinking." I exercise here with you only those tools and methods of the history of the discipline has originated. Philosophy, unlike religion or spirituality (another term I would like C & P for), is the paradigm of open thought...
One of the things philosophers have pointed out over the centuries of consideration of this subject (including some very notable Theologians/philosophers, Aquinas for instance): Simply stated, it is indeed difficult to provide empirical evidence of non-material phenomena - to empirically prove the existence of something not material. On the other hand, what would? Further, is the experience you speak of (an experience with the transpersonal) not itself empirical data - Francis Bacon would says so, as would modern thinkers - and so open to the same degree and method of scrutiny as the rest of our empirical, observational data?
Andrew, majority supported arguments are called bandwagon reasoning and consider an informal reasoning fallacy, I tell you this out of courtesying. The obvious support for this is found in the flat Earth hypothesis counter-example (or countless others through history and today). The majority of people believed the Earth flat, based on empirical evidence for more tangible, trackable, and testable than a soul.
I am also sorry to hear you have lost that once profound sense of magic and fantasy you once held for Santa. At least you still have the transpersonal, spiritual soul to feel profoundly about. (I hope this is not lost on you).
Again, this is in fact a profound question being asked. We need to work hard in meditating on the subject.
Cheers,
Shawn
Shawn Warren
The “transcendental” (a term not synonymous with “transpersonal”) is understood in many ways and treated by many philosophers. Notice I said ‘understood’ and ‘treated’. The thing about the sort of position you and Andrew seem to hold is that ultimately it is self-refuting and manages this (no less) by using the very cognitive tools which it is officially claiming are not appropriate to the subject. In philosophy, we call this an absurdity. At this point most meaningful conversation and reflection, and any support one might have originally harboured for the proposition OUGHT TO be abandoned in favour of another. This is common, sound, recommended cognitive behaviour not found in your position on the soul, but I suspect is alive and well in your home, work and relationships…or you would have met your demise by now.
You speak in riddles because you use my language, our language, the language in ways that have special meaning to you. This is a CHEAT and IRRESPONSIBLE. “Evidence of things not seen,” if what you offer is “evidence,” then I am sorry it receives responsible, reliable consideration like any other piece of evidence in support of any proposition – in this case, a proposition making an existential claim no less, not that hot fudge is better than butterscotch. You claim something exists (there is an ontological category). You claim there is “evidence” for its existence. This same thing “obviates human intellect.” You claim to “know” this something you have to “enter the realm of faith.” Do you understand the proper, common, shared and so meaning of these terms: By this meaning (one you are IRRESPONSIBLIY abusing) it is in fact impossible to know anything form faith. Knowledge is not derived from faith, because of what the word ‘knowledge’ means, not to you, but to us, to the common users. Knowledge and faith are diametrically opposed epistemic categories.
You are showing contempt for this question. Please stop. Sincerely, Shawn
Sean Wolf
To give you an idea of what it reads like:
The unreal can't be determined by the real. The unreal can only be determined by the unreal. The unreal is unreal.
If something cannot be measured by real means, then it must be considered unreal. For only those things that are real can be measured by real means. Eternity is real. Unchangeability is real. Infinity is real. These cannot be applied to things that you say cannot be determined by the real.