The immortality of the 'soul'

[canninator]

I think all those various expressions are philosophically problematic (Wittgenstein would have stripped to rubble, I suspect, discussion about whether 'souls' 'exist', and are 'of' or 'outside' the universe). Before we can even begin to make headway, we'd all have to agree on the meaning (or lack thereof) of those expressions; and in so doing, I don't think we'd ever get as far as bringing information theory (or any other theory) to bear on the issue.

My point is that in contemplating 'souls' and the question of their 'immortality', we're in territory beyond what language can deal with (let alone information theory), and so silence is the only appropriate response.

[I daresay there are those who would say the silence is about nothing, but I'd regard that as altogether a step too far.]

Well this is a complicated issue to cover in a few sentences but...'The soul exists' as an axiom and not a nonsense preposition shouldn't fall foul of W. If we use the logical positivist idea of meaning by consensus we can get around that problem. The axiomatic soul as 'of' or 'outside' the Universe can be described by standard logic and then we can move seemlessly into information theory. Mind you, I'm not saying this is rock solid but it doesn't have a certain flair 

[Elgarian]

Well this is a complicated issue to cover in a few sentences but...'The soul exists' as an axiom and not a nonsense preposition shouldn't fall foul of W. If we use the logical positivist idea of meaning by consensus we can get around that problem. The axiomatic soul as 'of' or 'outside' the Universe can be described by standard logic and then we can move seemlessly into information theory. Mind you, I'm not saying this is rock solid but it doesn't have a certain flair 

You're right - it's impossible to tackle this satisfactorily here (even if I had time to attempt it, which I don't, and I expect you don't either). However, I'd suggest that the Logical Positivist definition of a meaningful statement is unlikely to attract the consensus you seek. This would arise partly because I believe it was effectively demolished by Popper a long time ago, who showed it to be self-refuting; partly because such a restrictive definition would lead inevitably to a reductionist outcome (I mean, we wouldn't need to pursue the argument, because we know what the outcome would be - it's predetermined by the a priori restrictive definition of meaning); and partly because I suspect those who would assert (or seriously wonder about) the issue of the immortality of souls would reject every aspect of the inquiry as missing the point.

One keeps coming back to Wittgenstein. We're in the territory of things that can't be said. If we insist on trying to say them, we end up either with nonsense statements (category errors); or with statements that are so reductive that they cease to be recognisable as being about the original concept at all.

[Karl Henning]

Ah, the limitations of words. Must be partly why I am a composer.

[Elgarian]

Ah, the limitations of words. Must be partly why I am a composer.

Spot on, Karl - as a composer you don't say things. You show them. Wittgenstein would be happy with that (as are we all!)

[canninator]

You're right - it's impossible to tackle this satisfactorily here (even if I had time to attempt it, which I don't, and I expect you don't either).

QFT, message sent by pm.

[mahler10th]

Spot on, Karl - as a composer you don't say things. You show them. Wittgenstein would be happy with that (as are we all!)

Yes, well, that is what writers do too.   

[Elgarian]

Yes, well, that is what writers do too.   

Yes of course, but to go down that road would entangle the discussion even more hopelessly, I think. I was thinking specifically in terms of Wittgenstein's distinction between things that can only be said and things that can only be shown. Music 'says' nothing but 'shows' us things. (Some might say it provided one of the ways of communicating the notion of 'soul', even.) A poem may do both, but I don't have the stamina (or maybe also the ability) to cope with that additional complication!

This is all too hard, and takes so long to think through. I'm going back to Scheherazade.

[Karl Henning]

Spot on, Karl - as a composer you don't say things. You show them. Wittgenstein would be happy with that (as are we all!)

[Elgarian]

I have no words ....

[Karl Henning]

 Chanced upon that yesterday, Alan, and methought, This can be no mere coincidence…

[mahler10th]

This is all too hard, and takes so long to think through. I'm going back to Scheherazade.

Yes, I think I will join you on that.   

***builds a shed and goes into it with Scheherazade on ipod***

[Elgarian]

Chanced upon that yesterday, Alan, and methought, This can be no mere coincidence...

Indeed Karl, there are no coincidences in the Shed.

[Elgarian]

Yes, I think I will join you on that.   

***builds a shed and goes into it with Scheherazade on ipod***

Well John, we can now claim there are at least two people currently acting sensibly on GMG.

(Sorry, I can't help asking ... which version of Scheherazade is on your ipod?)

[Karl Henning]

Shed-herazade