Jan Ardena said:
With that logic most of us would agree that billionaires do not exist.
Why?
We have subjective experience of billionaires.
We may not have direct experience of being a billionaire, but we have experience of their existence (through the press etc).
Ageusia sufferers have no such subjective experience of taste, which is a specific sense.
So it is a flawed comparison.
What does ''not being wrong'' mean then?
It means that it has not been shown to be incorrect.
It remains a possibility, whether one considers it rational or not.
Faith or blind faith is not needed to accept that we are essentially a spiritual component. Why would you think they are?
If there is no evidence that rationally supports the claim then I consider it to be a matter of faith.
I have no such evidence.
Ergo for me it would be a matter of faith.
Because I hold it to be a cornerstone of what I deem the rational explanation.
No it hasn't. OJ is the essential component that makes an orange an orange, the soul is the component that makes a living being, live.
How is that flawed?
Firstly because OJ is nothing but chemicals.
And can, theoretically, be synthesised with 100% accuracy so as to be indistinguishable (as per example of the colours).
Secondly because it is not the essential component.
It is merely a component, along with the flavour, the texture, the colour, the shape etc.
Biologically the essential component is the seed by which the species propagates no survive.
That we produce oranges primarily for their juice is irrelevant.
We didn't create them.
They evolved to be oranges before we came along.
My point is that it is not regarded as a human.
Your point is that
you do not regard it as human.
I would say that it is a rather complex philosophical issue, and your conclusion is a result of your view of soul, not something that can give credence to your position.
Are you saying that synthetic juice is non different to pure orange juice?
I am saying that if anything is produced synthetically with 100% accuracy then it is indistinguishable and non-different from the original.
The color is not the essential component of the orange, we call it orange because of it's color, but we utilize the orange primarily because of it's flavor. Without that component we would have no use for it.
As previously explained, this is a human-centric viewpoint.
The view you are espousing is one that stems from an external person's use of that fruit.
This is thus not analogous to the soul.
There is no evidence that we have a purpose, and that the soul is the essential component for that purpose.
It is an unwarranted assumption.
The flavor is the only reason we enjoy it. Without it, it is of little to no use. Do you agreee Baldeee?
Who says we have to enjoy it?
Does something we do not enjoy therefore not have a soul / essential component?
And no, I do not agree that it is of no use without the flavour.
It has much reduced usage for humans, though.
They are essential, but without the living entity, namely the soul, they are of no use.
So again you are just using the term soul for "life", the "act of living".
Your allowed to conclude how you like, but unless you show me how my analogy is flawed with regards to demonstrating an aspect of the soul, we're just going round in circles.
Already done:
The fact that 100% accurately synthesised material is no different to the natural.
The fact that you are looking at what is essential through the purpose you consider the object to have... Which is thus reliant not only on you already believing that the object has a purpose, but that you know what the purpose is.
While you can do that for the fruit from a human-centric viewpoint, you are unable to do so for life itself.
a) we're not talking about chemical x, we're discussing the essential component of an orange, and the essential component of a living being, namely the soul
b) I don't know what you mean by chemical x, or how it relates to the subject matter.
It's called an analogy.
Much like the one you are using with orange juice.
Chemical x is whatever chemical is extracted from the plant that gives it the colour.
The colour being the "essential component" to the flower in question.
The chemical x is also able to be 100% accurately synthesised.
The synthetic and natural versions are indistinguishable.
The analogy is to orange juice, if able to be 100% accurately, would indistinguishable.
And if you start arguing for credence because orange juice can not be replicated 100% then you are ignoring all other analogies (e.g. Colour being the essential component of some flowers etc) and hinging your argument on matters of technological capability rather than any actual logic.
Further, the economic viability of replicating it 100% does not mean that it can not be.
And that's the only reason right? Riiiiight!
It is a reason many things that are possible are not done, or even attempted: economic viability (including considerations of time, effort, benefits, risks, rewards etc).
You're aware that flavor is present within the rind aren't you?
Yes.
Of what relevance is that to the point I made?
So rather than clarify, you merely dismiss?
The soul is the essential component.
So you keep saying.
No I can't prove they exist, but I'm not arguing for their existence. But one would be stupid to conclude that taste does not exist because they have no capacity to taste, or they cut off their capacity to taste, in spite of overwhelming testament to the contrary.
Perhaps you have confused me for someone who claims the soul does not exist?
That is the only way I can see you thinking your comment is relevant.
To be clear: I have not said the soul does not exist.
I am still waiting for a definition/understanding that is more than just semantics, and actually offers something.
Your going round in circles.
If that is where your arguments lead me.
That is your perogative.
Just as it is the perogative of someone who has lost or given up the sense to smell, to conclude that smell does not exist because he/she can't smell.
Relevancy?
Both.
...
Conclusion - you are ''i am'' and ''me'' before you are Baldee (I feel a song coming on)
I disagree.
I have always been me, I and baldeee.
I have never been anything other than that.
I may not have labelled myself that in the beginning, but labels do not define reality.
Actually, the correct term is spirit-soul, and it's symptom is consciousness.
So separate the symptom from they cause to explain why they are different.
What is different?
A virus is not the flu symptoms.
If consciousness is the symptom of the soul, what is the soul?
Maybe you'll understand what I mean, or maybe you won't.
Maybe you'll be able to adequately explain what you mean, or maybe you won't. :shrug: