Arguments for the soul's existence...
- Thread starter one_raven
- Start date
So far in the read it fails to deal with th eissue of preconceptions that arrise such as:
this presumes that because the legal system has determined that brain death is in fact death we are now left with an extension of that into the arguement against the soul.
The courts do not know what death is and at exactly what moment or what has to happen to cause death but we have allowed this ruling to determnine our arguement. We do know howver what 8s recoverable from and what isn't. [hope vs no hope]
It also states that we know that the personality resides in the Brain and makes other significant assumptions....
any ways....back to reading...
this presumes that because the legal system has determined that brain death is in fact death we are now left with an extension of that into the arguement against the soul.
The courts do not know what death is and at exactly what moment or what has to happen to cause death but we have allowed this ruling to determnine our arguement. We do know howver what 8s recoverable from and what isn't. [hope vs no hope]
It also states that we know that the personality resides in the Brain and makes other significant assumptions....
any ways....back to reading...
.
totally a presumption based on what?
on the limitations of what we know and think we know...an arrogant position IMO
Last edited:
the other funny thing about this is:
a persons body can maintain it's existance even after the brain has clinically ceased to live....but the brain cannot live with out the heart beating....hmmmmm interesting conuption that is....
- brain dead - person still alive due to heart beating - legally dead - but still body still alive.
- heart dead - brain dead - person dead. final
hmmmmm.....
no, it states that because that's the logical conclusion based on our observations. no other part of the body has ever been observed to have a personality. it has nothing to do with what the law states. the law is altered because of scientific conclusions, not the other way around.
what? a body cannot sustain itself without the brain, unless you consider organ transplants/supportive machinery. but then your second point is false. you didn't actually address the point of the paragraph you quoted, which is that the brain is where the individuality resides. would you really consider your mom as your mom if she had someone else's brain?
Actually I always considered my mom when she was alive as being her love and her affection, her heart....oh sure the name she was given by her parents may rest as knowledge somewhere in that brain she had but my mom the person I cared about lived right smack bang in the middle [ slight of centre] of her chest.
hmmmmm....
The thing is you cannot limit notions of these things only to scientific observations of the body as we know no where nearly enough to even know what to look for.
It is only through behavioural sciences that is the thorough observation of human behaviour whihc of course is far from great as regarding evidence that you can conclude most about this issue.
Do a survey as to where people feel the person they care about resides in their body and find out what common belief is...
- How does this manifest in behaviour generally? Does behaviour confirm the belief? etc etc
- When you give a person a hug are you hugging their brain ? Or are you hugging their chest?
- When you kiss someone what are you hoping for...a flutter of neurological activity or an increase in heart rate....?
- When people are facinated with spiritualism and soul stuff etc etc why is this so and what drives it beyond fear of mortality?
and on that note I am done....
it is obvious that feelings are not stemmed at all from the heart. some people have their heart replaced with a mechanical one. they do not turn into heartless crazies (woohoo a pun)
scientists know a lot about the human body actually. and your questions do nothing to strengthen your position. some of them aren't even relevant. i don't hug peoples' brains because it's difficult and not very comfortable, and people feel a "flutter" in their heart because of the neurological activity that tells your glands to release chemicals. this isn't a circular discussion as much as it is dealing with logic and misconceptions of how the body works.
scientists know a lot about the human body actually. and your questions do nothing to strengthen your position. some of them aren't even relevant. i don't hug peoples' brains because it's difficult and not very comfortable, and people feel a "flutter" in their heart because of the neurological activity that tells your glands to release chemicals. this isn't a circular discussion as much as it is dealing with logic and misconceptions of how the body works.
so you feel that the scientists know what they are doing regarding the human body?
name one illness that they have actually cured with medical intervention?
[not talking about changes to hygene, lifestyle, ongoing treatmenrts or behaviour...]
Name one illness they have cured....
[not talking about changes to hygene, lifestyle, ongoing treatmenrts or behaviour...]
Name one illness they have cured....
He also doesn't understand what is going on with his own body enough to know the difference....
Signing out...
hee hee...I was just thinking...the common cold has been around how long now?
what has curing a disease have anything to do with our understanding of the functions of the human body?
and meningitis
anyways, this has strayed from the existence of the soul. if all you have to say to my previous post is "so you feel that the scientists know what they are doing regarding the human body?" then i don't see much else to discuss with you
well it was you who wanted to throw medical sciences knowledge down my throat as evidence of no soul.....wasn't it...or am I mistaken...?
the simple fact is that you [medical science] have not the knowledge necessary to make a judgement on the issue in fact given the current state of failure I would be reluctant to grant credibility to it even if they did.
You have entered the debate by pursuing the "we [the medical scientists] find no evidence for the existence of a soul" arguement but I wonder if you are qualfied to even bother looking for evidence.
do you see my point?
actually it was post 10 that did it
you shouldn't critique my posts based on your assumptions about me, but by what i say (which is consistent with the findings of many scientists you would probably say are qualified). the brain has been the only place in the body that is able to do things such as hold memories and induce emotions. the heart cannot do any of those, and you can tell by interviewing anyone who has gotten a heart transplant.
for what reason do you believe we have souls? and can you define "soul" for me?
actually it was post 10 that did it
you shouldn't critique my posts based on your assumptions about me, but by what i say (which is consistent with the findings of many scientists you would probably say are qualified). the brain has been the only place in the body that is able to do things such as hold memories and induce emotions. the heart cannot do any of those, and you can tell by interviewing anyone who has gotten a heart transplant.
for what reason do you believe we have souls? and can you define "soul" for me?
Posts
#106,107,109,112,113,114,116 and so on.....
the nature of forums where the threads get long is that most jump in with out reading the prior posts...I am as guilty as any one of this...however I don't normally attack with [woohoo arguements] with out reading them first...
your concept of soul doesn't seem to be contradictory, but i believe it to be an unnecessary assumption because emotion can be explained through perfectly natural processes. you also seem to be under the assumption that a computer cannot theoretically be programmed to be advanced as a human when according to our current findings in science, that's all we are - very, very advanced computers.
this is an incorrect assessment IMO we are certainly a lot more clever in build than a mere binary computer.
I would argue that you coudl build as much programming into a compueter as you like and spend eternity doing it but yu will never achieve one importnat aspect...that being life.
And to be honest it is the soul that allows us to find self meaning and purpose in a way that is self justifying. [ unto ourselves ]
A computer program can never do this on the fly but woud need not only to be self aware and conscious but also self meaning and self purposeful in a way that is free of programming.
How a computer can be given consciousness is an interestiing question yes?
Free will requires improvisation and creativity which a computer can never do.
So the materiallist arguement fails in the final wash...
That is not to say that the soul is some sort of spiritual entity as I have deliberately avoided this aspect of common definition and thus my arguement is invalid relative to the threads OP.
However by focussing on what we can determine we might shed light on the issue.... is my justification
Itis not the presence of emotion that is in question. It is the meaning and value of thatemotion to ourselves that is.
Like wise Knowledge can be stored sure. But finding meaning and value is not so simple.
the soul allows us to feel what we are feeling and apply meaning to what we are feeling. values can then be determined by those feelings about what we are feeling. [ sort of like the body in reflection ]
Without soul we are nothing more than an organic computer or machine....as literature has described for thousands of years.
And as suggested the soul coud very well be our reflected awareness of our endocrine system, our hormones [ in reflection] which is how it interacts wth the material world.
So it is very much in this context of material possibility until death of course then we can consider all sorts of scenarios but evidence is far form available to conclude anything.
Like wise Knowledge can be stored sure. But finding meaning and value is not so simple.
the soul allows us to feel what we are feeling and apply meaning to what we are feeling. values can then be determined by those feelings about what we are feeling. [ sort of like the body in reflection ]
Without soul we are nothing more than an organic computer or machine....as literature has described for thousands of years.
And as suggested the soul coud very well be our reflected awareness of our endocrine system, our hormones [ in reflection] which is how it interacts wth the material world.
So it is very much in this context of material possibility until death of course then we can consider all sorts of scenarios but evidence is far form available to conclude anything.
you can program a computer to program itself. theoretically, it can be every bit as advanced as a human. we are composed of the same matter that makes everything else. so why should we be "special"?
our feeling of purpose is not a compelling argument for the existence of a soul. people feel many things, but it doesn't make the feelings true
our feeling of purpose is not a compelling argument for the existence of a soul. people feel many things, but it doesn't make the feelings true