If there is a soul what does it do in an afterlife
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
TheVisitor,
We know of no other creature that can write scriptures. You will need to prove this extraordinary claim.
Ahh the puppet master and his puppets. What a crazy concept for life.
A delusion fully consistent with a non existent god that of course cannot speak.
Just like purple polka-dot fire breathing dragons.
How is it not different? Check the many-minds interpetation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind , etc....
Explain how it isn't different? "soul" is just a word for a mind that isn't made of matter, existing independantly of the brain. Neurology can't explain the "hard problem of consciousness". Whats so incredibly implausible about it existing? Oh I know, it can't exist, why? Because I have to defend my atheist faith.
Again, a soul or a mind independant of matter isn't completely baseless at all.KennyJC said:
So why do you insist that everything besides what you believe is delusional?KennyC said:
Not really. The "facts" and "truths" continously change in science.KennyJC said:
Immaterial meaning not made of matter. Gravity, time, electromagnetism, etc...are immaterial.KennyJC said:
So then all revolutionary scientists were delusional, through your logic.KennyJC said:
No not really, they are initially just ways of trying explain things, then the theory that wins out is the one that the evidence correlates with.KennyJC said:
But a "soul" existing is far more probable then a celestial teapot existing based on the fact that neurology can't explain the "hard problem of consciousness", and there are many theories suggesting that there is a mind that exists independant of matter.KennyJC said:
c7,
But no. The truth is that for me and you that if we are not able to prevent our bodies from eventually dying then those neural networks that constitute what we think of as ourselves, will simply cease to exist.
For all your creatively imaginatve pseudo-mystical fantasies and proposals in the end simple material hard facts will determine our outcomes.
A wonderful fantasy, and thanks for thinking of me.
But no. The truth is that for me and you that if we are not able to prevent our bodies from eventually dying then those neural networks that constitute what we think of as ourselves, will simply cease to exist.
For all your creatively imaginatve pseudo-mystical fantasies and proposals in the end simple material hard facts will determine our outcomes.
VitalOne,
No, this is nonsense. That we are still studying how the brain functions and still have a lot to do is no justification for proposing that magic happens. At the very least the proposal is extremly premature and more importantly there is absolutely no precedent or basis for suggesting that something supernatural or magical can possibly exist. In that respect the celestial teapot is far more credible, since at least we know that a teapot can exist.
Last edited:
Oh, is THAT all? I thought for a minute you were proposing something unreasonable
Neurology already has consensus that conciousness is just one of many activities within the brain. The hard problem is understanding how it arises from the complex network of neurons. But indeed we would be hard pressed to explain any function of the brain in this fasion, but all phenomena generated by the brain work's in this way, including conciousness.
Seems like a pretty funny contradiction. If it isn't made of matter or observable in any way, then it is completely baseless.
I don't have any beliefs, at least not in the same sense that magical & superstitious thinkers have.
Based on where evidence leads us. There are many things in science today that will be relevant to science always. Just an example off the top of my head...The atomic number of each chemical element which is based on the number of protons that destinguishes between the elements. Even if a new element is discovered in the future, it doesn't mean this scientific concept has been irrelevant before that.
Its not nonsense, but then again stuck in your narrow-minded mindset ("everyone is delusional if they don't agree with me") I see how you could think that.
Check the Many-minds interpretation of QM, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation
Also who's talking about something supernatural and magical? Why do you insist that the soul or a mind not made of matter has to be magical and supernatural?
So what word should I use? The dictionary defines it as something not material, incorporeal, having no substance or form, precisely what I mean. Why do you keep pushing that it has to be supernatural for?
The world 'material' means made of matter, form, substance, therefore gravity, time, electromagnetism, being not made of matter are 'immaterial'. I don't know why you have a problem with the definition.
If anybody wants to start a thread to debate it seriously, I'll argue for Many-minds because common sense supports the theme, as does the progress of this thread and so many others like it: We all live in Worlds of our own.
Poll people on the street and they'll tell you that.
Again, why is it unreasonable? You have yet to explain this. The fact that you ignore any theory that you don't agree with demonstrates your narrow-mindedness, no different from radical theists.Oh, is THAT all? I thought for a minute you were proposing something unreasonable
And one possible solution is that there is something besides matter that has to do with consciousness. But this is unreasonable to you.KennyJC said:
Yeah you do, the belief that neural activity explains everything about consciousness, there's nothing beyond it but neural activity. This is what strict materialists hold. However, most neurologists themselves do not believe this.KennyJC said:
Yeah, but after one big scientific revolution, the way things are looked at will greatly change, now imagine many big scientific revolutions. The result will be that the science today will be more irrevalant.KennyJC said:
VitalOne,
This is the usual expectation of the meaning of material and the corollory i.e. "immaterial" is none of those things, i.e. undetectable by science.
These are the usual definitions of these terms as used in philosophy and it becomes very confusing when you proceed to invent your own.
Do you also understand that matter is composed of particles bound by forces. I.e, when we talk of material things it automatically includes the necessary forces.
Because - The definition of "matter" in modern philosophical materialism extends to all scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, and the curvature of space. In this sense, one might speak of the "material world". From wikipedia.
This is the usual expectation of the meaning of material and the corollory i.e. "immaterial" is none of those things, i.e. undetectable by science.
These are the usual definitions of these terms as used in philosophy and it becomes very confusing when you proceed to invent your own.
Do you also understand that matter is composed of particles bound by forces. I.e, when we talk of material things it automatically includes the necessary forces.
VitalOne,
You are arguing for duality, an entity that can exist seperate to the brain, and that is not supportable, necessary, or credible especially when considering the power and complexity that the brain provides. It doesn't make any sense to me to consider these peripheral fantasies before we have made much more headway in understanding the undoubtable complexity that faces us with the material brain.
It is not a matter of narrow-mindedness but one of perspective, credibility, and evidence.
You are arguing for duality, an entity that can exist seperate to the brain, and that is not supportable, necessary, or credible especially when considering the power and complexity that the brain provides. It doesn't make any sense to me to consider these peripheral fantasies before we have made much more headway in understanding the undoubtable complexity that faces us with the material brain.
Is it possible to perceive but not to be apart?
How do explain an out of the body experience, when somebody floats above themselves and sees their body?
Let me guess.
You are going to dismiss this as hallucination, some sort of a fantasy, right?
Now tell us how you would know that in scientific terms, except for presupposing this to suit your purpose.
Except in terms of the narrative, how do you measure, how do you support hallucination?
Why are dreams necessary and what is the evidence of a dream, except that somebody tells you and you have to believe it?
Are the brainwaves and eyeballs going to tell you what the dream was about?