Anyway, if I were to explain the soul, I would go with Plato and say it is the charioteer that drives and controls the horses and the chariot. It is the aspect of man that is not at the mercy of physical concerns or impulses, it is the very ability to make a decision one way as opposed to the other.
This idea has been out of style for some time. It similar enough to the "homunculus theory". Unfortunately it leads to an infinite regress; if a little man in my mind is deciding everything for me, then what is deciding everything for the little man? Another little man? Who decides for him?
The idea has pragmatic value if you apply it to human cognition.
Alright. I think I can see it either way. After all, we do seem to be living in a universe where infinity is not impossible. Maybe an infinite regress is actually not that absurd of an idea after all, when considering cognition.
Is that what you're saying?
The way I understand it, a good portion of our mathematical models only work with infinity.
Though to answer your question, infinite regress is just a glitch in our thinking pertaining to causality.
Please explain both statements. What mathematical models specifically only work with infinity? Generally, mathematicians and physicists consider a formula useless if it returns infinity at any time. That is a sign that their input is incorrect somewhere. I just finished up a book in which this was discussed a lot, actually (The Shape of Inner Space by Shing-Tung Yau, solid read and any layman without deep knowledge of math or physics [like myself] can get something out of it).
As far as the second statement; you're saying that an infinite regress is just the way one could think of the infinity of variations and physical configurations that occur as time passes? Care to explain how it relates to causality?
Necroslaughter : Could be I was drawing parallels out of line. Nevertheless I would say what Wild already said; to consider some part of "you" a chariot, another part horses, and yet another part the charioteer, is indeed a false dichotomy. If "you" remove any one of those parts, where would "you" be and what would have happened to "you"? And is any one of those parts on their own "you"?
(1) I was recalling, albeit poorly, a conversation I had with a friend who is way more into mathematics than I am. I'll have to ask next time I see him, I could be fucked to recall the details right now
(2) Infinite regress is, in my opinion, just an expression of the limitations of our mental faculties. Causalities an easy example of this limitation because it leads us looking for this, under that, which is under this, that was generated by that, who created it after being created by something else and so on. One way out, ontologically, is the Monad.
(3) With regards to the human, it is like anything else, there are 3 in everything. 3 phases of the moon, 3 faculties of man, on and on. Iamblichus considered the Triad to be perfectly balanced. The Greeks had a special Isoceles triangle which, when graphed, would turn out to match, point for point, the golden ratio, when drawn on the same graph. Mathematically, the proportions of this triangle are supposed to be a case of super symmetry. I don't know what that means exactly, but the point is, you can find this principles of 3 everywhere.