Swinburne’s Separations

[Philosophy Now]

Sally Latham on Swinburne’s argument that you can exist without your body.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/102/Swi ... eparations

[Greylorn Ell]

Sally Latham on Swinburne’s argument that you can exist without your body.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/102/Swi ... eparations

Ms. Latham;

Your article contains considerable merit, and could benefit from some terminology clarifications.

You frequently use the term "physical" and its opposite, "non-physical." e.g. the ‘thisness’ that makes me me is something non-physical. I think that your terminology is used incorrectly, muddling your argument.

Non-physicists often confuse the terms "physical" and "material." The latter means, more or less, composed of matter. Matter is the stuff that we think we are composed of, the atoms in our bodies, the stuff of which our planet is made, our sun, stars, etc.

However, slightly less than 5% of the universe is made of matter. A larger portion of it is made from something that at first look is less substantial-- energy. Philosophers do not understand energy because it requires some knowledge of physics, so of course they dismiss it from their considerations. In doing so they, and probably you amongst them, are blowing off the information needed to comprehend not only how the physical universe works, but also how the conscious mind works.

Without understanding the nature of energy, or at least trying to sight-in on such an understanding, forget about knowing anything about the nature of "soul." The real nature of soul is not a philosophical concept. It is a physics concept.

Your arguments would make sense to a physicist if, and only if you replaced the word "physical" with "material." Physics is more than the study of matter. It includes the study of everything that interacts with matter, that is, all forms of energy.

If you take a moment to look at your hands, you imagine that you see matter. You do not. You observe only the light reflected from electric fields generated by the atoms in those hands. I.e. you see tiny bits of light-energy called photons.

Or step on a scale to measure your weight after last night's dinner of fish, chips, and ale. What does the number on the scale mean? Does it truly measure the amount of matter that composes your body?

Perhaps, but only indirectly. For kicks, bring a scale into a elevator and check your weight while the elevator moves up and down. You'll notice variations. These will tell a junior physicist that you are measuring neither mass nor matter, but rather, the rate of acceleration of some matter within a complex of force-generation fields. The experiment will tell you that your notion of "material" is as vague as your notion of "soul," and can only be measured or examined indirectly.

There is one exception to that comment. You are, I suspect, one of those who has experienced a serious paranormal experience. Your belief in "soul" stems not from logical evidence, but from personal experience that forever changed your understanding of reality. More than likely, you are and have always been persistently psychic. If so, you have taken a personal measurement of soul. You have not weighed it or tested it in the context of the stuff we know about physical reality, but that does not matter, for you have verified its existence. Determination of existence must precede any attempts at physical measurement.

If so, you learned not to speak of your experiences in regular society or among any other gaggle of incompetent nits whose belief systems would not have accepted your experience. Your second choice has been to seek logical explanations of the reality that you know independently of the evidence from your personal experience. You've done an admirable job of it, especially for a non-physicist.

Physics studies the "physical," of which matter (the material) is but a subset. Matter is but one form of energy. Others include electromagnetic radiation and their associated fields, gravitational energy, and motion.

If whatever defines you as a conscious entity is connected to your brain, it is physical, by definition. ("Beon" is my term for it.) Your brain is physical. Anything that can interact with it is also physical. However, it need not be material.

Physics has yet to assign any form of energy to the "soul," but it must have such a form. By the definition of physical, anything that interacts with matter or energy is itself physical by definition. Yours and Swinburne's arguments seem to require a soul that is in some way integrated with at least half of a brain's hemisphere (I propose only one half. You'll understand my meaning if you research the early (1960-75) Sperry-Gazzaniga studies on the effects of split-brain surgeries.)

You wrote, "This ‘thisness’ we may call a ‘soul’ – a term many philosophers will be loath to use, but which concept the argument demonstrates deserves at least some consideration. We would then be left with the idea that each embodied human consists of two parts – a body (non-essential to the person’s identity) and a soul (essential to it).

"At this point, I will unashamedly avoid the issue of what a soul is, the implications this idea presents, and how it relates to the body. More of that another time, perhaps."

You would be differently qualified to continue with this issue after seriously and very slowly perusing the troublesome, annoying, and socially incorrect book, "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul." (Yes, that's a pitch. I really need the $2.37 profit.)