Arguments for the soul's existence...

yes, a robot world that can imitate human action can exist. they would be able to act out what we do so there is no observable difference between them and us if we only observe with sight and sound. but a robot world that is composed of robots with emotion and "meaning" can also exist.
Click to expand...
imitation is one thing being real is another....no observable difference means jack sh"t if you don't mind me saying so.

so we have robots acting as if they are alive and conscious...sheesh...thats a real use that is....I guess I can act like a robot too...
Meanign ony exists if it can be appreciated with feeling.

Tell me how do you make a robot feel?
feel the sensationof heat or cold or smell a flower in spring time or taste a cucumber that is chilled and loaded with vinegar and salt.
Taste the diference between sweet and sour or get sore eyes from staying out too late boozing on vodka spiked with extasy?
 
Actually theres you r key differeces already.

we have yet to work out how to create a machine that can actually smell or taste anything...

sure we can do chemical analysis and reaction devices but to actually smell the salt air or the scent of a woman....hmmmm ha I don't think so....ha
 
but a robot world that is composed of robots with emotion and "meaning" can also exist.
Click to expand...
as an imitation but do you know how to do a simulation of universal consciousness to make it complete?
 
sisyphus__ said:
And, it is simple to compute the simple reqs of there being a soul. Discussion of the very thing which allows us to die, there is no alternative when someone faces an authority that they were speaking wrongly from to begin with, plus he hardley ever considers anything you are saying QQ so, he can't very well begin to discuss it.
Click to expand...
as i've implied before, there is no real difference between alive, not alive, and dead. if you can tell me what the difference is without straying into the supernatural or being arbitrary, i'd like to hear it.

Quantum Quack said:
I have a great respect fro our scientists eve though I believe they are greatly mistaken.
Click to expand...
in what way are they mistaken?

I don't believe in the supernatural as for me it is all natural and physical. There is no no-material or paranormal or supernatural eixstence. it is all material and all physical.
Click to expand...
in what way does the soul physically affect the brain to cause meaning and thought? and why is that impossible through neural connections alone?
 
Quantum Quack said:
imitation is one thing being real is another....no observable difference means jack sh"t if you don't mind me saying so.
Click to expand...
actually no observable difference means everything. if something is not observable, it's as good as nonexistant. there could be invisible spiders crawling all over us that we cannot observe, but since we cannot observe them, they cannot affect us so relevant to us, it's the same as them not existing

but you misinterpreted what i wrote. if you read more carefully, i said no observable difference through sight and sound. i was agreeing with you that imitation of the real thing is not the real thing.

Tell me how do you make a robot feel?
feel the sensationof heat or cold or smell a flower in spring time or taste a cucumber that is chilled and loaded with vinegar and salt.
Taste the diference between sweet and sour or get sore eyes from staying out too late boozing on vodka spiked with extasy?
Click to expand...
by making it as complex as we are

you say a soul is physical, so what is it composed of? where can we find it, and how can we observe it? not its effects, but the actual thing.
 
look I didn't get into this thread to put forward an entire hypothesis nor even argue about souls or not. I simply put forward a suggestion for One_ravens benefit as to how he may approach the issue for his book.
I 'm not going to answer an inquisition and I am not going to bother trying to support any of it...

I suggested that the same evidencial requirements for the existence of a soul be used to prove the existence of the mind....that was and still is my main point.
You can't prove the existence of the mind so why bother even trying to prove teh existence of the soul.
All you have is a brain and body to work with...well stick to that and state categorically that the mind deos not exist only the body does....
 
wizard said:
actually no observable difference means everything. if something is not observable, it's as good as nonexistant. there could be invisible spiders crawling all over us that we cannot observe, but since we cannot observe them, they cannot affect us so relevant to us, it's the same as them not existing
Click to expand...
you miss one important point and that being the failure of the observer to be able to observe. or the limitations of the observer.
 
we could see very little compared to when we started to look with the aid of the hubble telescope.
what have we discovered since we improved our observation ability?
heaps I bet...
 
Place a pc with a web cam in front of a mirror and wait until the computer prints on the screen the question: "is that me in the mirror?"

and then you will find part of your answer to what the soul is....
my guess is that you will be waiting an awful long time.....
 
And that was my 8000th post thanks wizard you have made my day....hee hee

now where were we....hmmmmmm
 
Quantum Quack said:
you miss one important point and that being the failure of the observer to be able to observe. or the limitations of the observer.
Click to expand...

by observe i mean any interaction between the observer and what is observed. i do not mean understanding of what is observed. in that sense, the limitations of the observer doesn't have to be considered, because it will go unnoticed. it does not matter if there is another dimension if it is impossible for it to interact with us. what is relevant to us is only what we can observe.
 
wizard said:
by observe i mean any interaction between the observer and what is observed. i do not mean understanding of what is observed. in that sense, the limitations of the observer doesn't have to be considered, because it will go unnoticed. it does not matter if there is another dimension if it is impossible for it to interact with us. what is relevant to us is only what we can observe.
Click to expand...
well good for you!

it don't interact with us as it IS us...

it isn't separate to the body it is the body....just as the mind IS the body...it is only for conveniance we are reducing the whole to it's smaller parts...an abstraction is all we are talking about....

an important abstraction true but still an abstraction of the whole..
 
any part of you should interact with you

what do you mean the mind IS the body? if the mind IS the body, then why not call it the body?
 
I was posting at JREF skeptic forum a while ago and the flamers accounted for at least 50% of the posts...ha...

with in 7 days I had got up 1500 posts....
learned a lot about nasty human internet behaviour and how to deal with flamers....had a lot of fun I must admit...
 
wizard said:
any part of you should interact with you

what do you mean the mind IS the body? if the mind IS the body, then why not call it the body?
Click to expand...
exactly my point well done...

We have a body that is comprosed of: muscles, bone, neurology etc etc and this manifests what some call a mind and soul.... as to what happens after we die well thats another story yet to be written properly.

so this is based on existing evidence ok as observed by todays scientists....that of course does not make it correct but simply the best we can do at the time...
Personally I believe other wise but that is my personal belief which is not supportable by evidence that your scientists would agree to... end of story...next!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top