A place for a soul seems quite silly. As understand it Aristotle's conception of the soul was 'form' which we might view more like a pattern or design. How things are arranged and function. It's not a physical thing that can be separated from its implementation.
We are not the 'stuff' we are made of, but the 'form' the stuff is made into. Indeed much of the 'stuff' (largely water) we are made of his replaced over our lifetimes and we retain our 'soul' (and that's not even considering the identical nature of elementary particles in Quantum Mechanics).
Thomas Aquinas (and others I gather, though I blame Aquinas!) turned the soul into a ghost.
Arthur, that’s exactly right. Aristotle thought that body and soul are separable only conceptually, because the soul is, as you say, a particular pattern implemented by the matter of the body/brain.
Supposedly over 80% of Homo superstitious believe in supernaturals including non-physical (energy-matter-information) and things independent of it. A Nobel Prize would be likely if such a thing could be evidenced! Why is the % so large? Reg Morrison (supported by Lynn Margulis, microbiologist and co-developer of gaia theory)in _The Spirit in the Gene_ holds that evolution selected this as it was beneficial for social bonding, cooperation, teamwork, and courage. Unfortunately we've become too successful, having quadrupled in the lifespan of living members. He sees Hans Selye's General Adaptive Stress Theory as an explanation of our impending population decline. Good write-up here: http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/gambler.pdf
Steven, thanks for sharing! I tend to be skeptical of most things Margulis says or supports. She’s brilliant, and under-credited. But she also shoots at random, and often hits very bizarre targets.
My take is similar to Dennett’s: religious and similar beliefs evolved as a byproduct of the otherwise adaptive tendency of human beings to project agency.
As for our impending population decline, which I wholeheartedly welcome, I think it has to do with education: research shows that educated women simply don’t want as many children, because they discover that they have better things to do. And since literacy, including among women, has gone up…
To declare that women don’t want too many children is a bit glib! I will contend that for the women who do have children, to educate them as well as they can is the most valuable contribution they can make. That implies not having dozens of children. It also allows them to involve themselves in other things they value.
Brigitte, I apologie if my comment came across as glib, it was not intended to be. The data, however, indicate not only that—as you say—women with fewer children take better care of them. They also indicate that more educated women simply do not want children at all. Or, when they, they also want a career and other things in life. As is understandable, I might add.
Why would humans allot power to a supernatural as a way to project their own agency? Uncertainty about unknowns including the future and death causes angst in many, and they can hang their discomfort on a 'skyhook.'
All of us need education. Empowerment of women to free themselves of patriarchal domination seems most important to me. Monotheistic religions (male deities) seem the worst offenders. Larger flocks bring $ and prestige, and competitive breeding has been openly stated by some religious leaders as their strategy to supplant other sects.
Agreed about monotheistic religions being the worst.
As for agency projection, the idea is that we evolved an instinct that makes us assume the existence of an agent behind any new pattern that could be potentially dangerous. If I hear a sound in the Savannah, I could assume it’s just the wind. But I might think it’s a lion in waiting. If I’m wrong on the second assumption, I’ve just got a fright. If I’m wrong on the first one, I may be someone else’s dinner.
Similarly, when people started to interpret natural phenomena like thunder, earthquakes, floods, etc., they attributed agency to them. Animism was born. Then it became anthropomorphized. And the rest is history.
A place for a soul seems quite silly. As understand it Aristotle's conception of the soul was 'form' which we might view more like a pattern or design. How things are arranged and function. It's not a physical thing that can be separated from its implementation.
We are not the 'stuff' we are made of, but the 'form' the stuff is made into. Indeed much of the 'stuff' (largely water) we are made of his replaced over our lifetimes and we retain our 'soul' (and that's not even considering the identical nature of elementary particles in Quantum Mechanics).
Thomas Aquinas (and others I gather, though I blame Aquinas!) turned the soul into a ghost.
Arthur, that’s exactly right. Aristotle thought that body and soul are separable only conceptually, because the soul is, as you say, a particular pattern implemented by the matter of the body/brain.
Supposedly over 80% of Homo superstitious believe in supernaturals including non-physical (energy-matter-information) and things independent of it. A Nobel Prize would be likely if such a thing could be evidenced! Why is the % so large? Reg Morrison (supported by Lynn Margulis, microbiologist and co-developer of gaia theory)in _The Spirit in the Gene_ holds that evolution selected this as it was beneficial for social bonding, cooperation, teamwork, and courage. Unfortunately we've become too successful, having quadrupled in the lifespan of living members. He sees Hans Selye's General Adaptive Stress Theory as an explanation of our impending population decline. Good write-up here: http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/gambler.pdf
Steven, thanks for sharing! I tend to be skeptical of most things Margulis says or supports. She’s brilliant, and under-credited. But she also shoots at random, and often hits very bizarre targets.
My take is similar to Dennett’s: religious and similar beliefs evolved as a byproduct of the otherwise adaptive tendency of human beings to project agency.
As for our impending population decline, which I wholeheartedly welcome, I think it has to do with education: research shows that educated women simply don’t want as many children, because they discover that they have better things to do. And since literacy, including among women, has gone up…
To declare that women don’t want too many children is a bit glib! I will contend that for the women who do have children, to educate them as well as they can is the most valuable contribution they can make. That implies not having dozens of children. It also allows them to involve themselves in other things they value.
Brigitte, I apologie if my comment came across as glib, it was not intended to be. The data, however, indicate not only that—as you say—women with fewer children take better care of them. They also indicate that more educated women simply do not want children at all. Or, when they, they also want a career and other things in life. As is understandable, I might add.
Why would humans allot power to a supernatural as a way to project their own agency? Uncertainty about unknowns including the future and death causes angst in many, and they can hang their discomfort on a 'skyhook.'
All of us need education. Empowerment of women to free themselves of patriarchal domination seems most important to me. Monotheistic religions (male deities) seem the worst offenders. Larger flocks bring $ and prestige, and competitive breeding has been openly stated by some religious leaders as their strategy to supplant other sects.
Agreed about monotheistic religions being the worst.
As for agency projection, the idea is that we evolved an instinct that makes us assume the existence of an agent behind any new pattern that could be potentially dangerous. If I hear a sound in the Savannah, I could assume it’s just the wind. But I might think it’s a lion in waiting. If I’m wrong on the second assumption, I’ve just got a fright. If I’m wrong on the first one, I may be someone else’s dinner.
Similarly, when people started to interpret natural phenomena like thunder, earthquakes, floods, etc., they attributed agency to them. Animism was born. Then it became anthropomorphized. And the rest is history.
I’m pretty sure that old boys club does live on. Hopefully, though, not forever…
Thanks, again, Massimo!🎉
And a Happy New Year to you!