The full agent-environment system information space includes the information contained within the organism and all information available to the organism, as well as all specificational information between the organism and environment. Any information that lies outside this space is irrelevant to observable reality, and therefore behaviorally irrelevant. Souls are therefore either entirely governed by the laws of observable reality (in the strongest sense), or entirely irrelevant to observable reality (in the strongest sense).
I want to emphasize that observable reality does not refer to what one can see with one's eyes, but what can be interacted with in principle. For our epistemological purposes, this includes anything science has not yet discovered or explained. It does not necessarily preclude the ontological existence of nonphysical phenomena, but it does necessarily preclude nonphysical phenomena (e.g. souls) affecting physical phenomena (e.g. minds) in any way.
In contemporary usage, psychology is the study of mind and behavior. Souls are studied exclusively by theologians today, not psychologists, and for the above reasons, they are studied through thought experiments, not empirical experiments.
"Irrelevant to observable reality" is not equivalent to "irrelevant." If one chooses to believe in souls, one chooses to accept the relevance of unobservable reality. I won't presume to make ontological claims about unobservable reality, since it is necessarily unknowable, but I posit to you that it is at least impossible to have knowledge of unobservable phenomena (e.g. souls) as an agent in the observable universe (e.g. as a living human being) because of the above.
It's very pleasant to argue with an intelligent and self-assured person)))... But the problem is that I can't do it properly because of my poor knowledge of English. )))
The word psychology is of Greek origin. And consists of two parts "psyche" meaning "soul" and logos "meaning "word" , "judgement"... So, it's a word of soul or it depends on your translation. Up to you ;-)...
Of course, all the fundamental and proved research is of the main and of ground importance for us, but we should not forget about non-proved but still existing phenomena . Everything should be scaled and observed taking into consideration ALL the aspects in the whole and in details both. As tried to do Pljames. He wanted to make a detailed observation of a process. I see he likes going into details which is right too. But what about concerning in the whole?
Though, it's not easy to deny what is not physically proved . But how non-physicall phenomena can be physically and materially proved? Nonsense. )))
If you think that soul does not exist, it's good. But what what about the translation of the science? What is meant by the word "psyche"?
Mysteries only have worth in their potential and practical resolutions. If one lets a mystery be a mystery, one also takes away all its wonder and makes it into a plain old unknown. Contrary to popular belief, the whole is actually a matter of great interest to science. Though reductionism remains popular, the advent of systems theory has given us increasingly unified methods with which to describe and explain systems not only at the individual level, as strong reductionism would have us do, but indeed at many overlapping scales. One would have had to be asleep in one's lab for the past 10-15 years to believe "the whole" is irrelevant, at this point. Make no mistake: there is nothing nonphysical or unobservable about the whole, but souls aren't it. Physical agents cannot test, and hence cannot know about, nonphysical phenomena, neither part nor whole. They can believe in them, and they may or may not prove right post mortem, but that's the limit of what can be said.
Thank you .... But I don't understand what you mean by "reductionism". I know the translation but I can't get the meaning in the context...
I'll try to read it once again later. Of course, the argue is senseless because I can't give you approvals. But it's ok . ..It is pleasant to communicate.. New breath of wind.))))
Reductionism is the idea that everything is reducible to a lower, and therefore more fundamental, level of organization. For a strong reductionist, sociology reduced to psychology. Psychology reduced to biology, biology reduced to chemistry, chemistry reduced to physics, etc. They believed that if we had a physical Theory of Everything, that would be all the science we needed.
Research has culminated in some very serious problems for the reductionist view in the past 10-15 years, however. Research going back to cybernetics and general systems theory, through catastrophe theory, chaos theory and eventually complex systems theory, some or all of which you may have encountered in popsci articles, have demonstrated that system behavior (what laymen would call "the whole" can affect individual behavior (the parts) directly. Not in some abstract or representational sense, but in a very physical sense.
This is also tied to why I say emotions don't have discrete origins. The history of a complex system, such as the human body, is irreducible (not reducible) in principle. There's fundamentally no way to say "it starts here," because the system starts everywhere and nowhere within the spacetime it encompasses. It isn't so much defined by a beginning and an end in the way a simple system might be, but by its complexity, robustness and flexibility over time (though strictly speaking, that is only so because simple systems have fixed values for those parameters).
I have had some enlightened metaphysical happenings and how do I share my experiences with others? I have no degree (yet). Sakov and Earl and you have enlightened me to understanding the brain and mind better. I understand the true relationship between the ego and subliminal thoughts. I could just relate the incidents to them too share and answer any questions they might have. Other than that I do not have a clue. pl
[quote author=pert -5 link=topic=2755.msg20031#msg20031 date=1335727112]
[quote author=pljames link=topic=2755.msg20029#msg20029 date=1335725557]
Is it possible Brain mind and body all work together when necessary,otherwise they work independent of each other when no working together? pl[/quote]
My take on this is that when the brain is no longer able to sustain its function then the phenomenon known as consciousness ends.