How come?
The brain is not independent because it needs an input to perceive and blood sugar to run.
An amplifier enables.
You are making no sense.
An ability is an ability not an input.
A computer is able to compute but it still needs an input.
If there is a soul what does it do in an afterlife
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
How come?
The brain is not independent because it needs an input to perceive and blood sugar to run.
An amplifier enables.
You are making no sense.
An ability is an ability not an input.
A computer is able to compute but it still needs an input.
Almost perfectly correct. Except that there is strong evidence that consciousness is a pure byproduct of the biochemical and bioelectrical functioning of the brain, since interfering with either system can seriously alter or destroy consciousness. Lots of evidence and experimental testing to back me up on that too.
TheVisitor,
Faith is simply belief without proof. And if you are ever correct using faith it is because of dumb luck and certainly nothing mystical.
That’s because in ancient times they had no idea what natural meant and everything seemed supernatural. Now that we have gained some knowledge we can tell the difference.
That’s right but until then it remains pure unsupported fantasy with absolutely no indication it could ever be possible.
Faith is just belief without proof. It has no value.
Which cannot be distinguished from delusion.
Whoose claims cannot be distinguished from delusion.
Or for those who can think it is called reason.
No, they are the exact opposites. Science is based entirely on evidence and religion is specifically based on the absence of evidence. Science looks at the unknown and tries to find answers while religion assumes an answer (God did it) and tries to make everything fit the answer.
The truth may always have been present but our knowledge of it requires us to look for it – that is science.
What is your freaking point? A brain is a network of neurons that responds to stimuli.
What's hard about that?
The subject was the soul, and what useful things could be said about such an entity.
Computers are not so soulful, as compared to human beings.
I suggest free will as useful point of discusion in order to distinguish the difference, with the soul related to the will, hence the brain, if you will.
If you rather have nothing useful to say about the soul then it is you, not me who is out of order.
You sir, are presupposing the conclusion by the very wording of your statements.
Firstly, the subject was originally about what a hypothetical soul would do in a supposedly eternal afterlife.
It seems to have turned to the evidence for such a thing as a soul. Saying that computers are less "soulful" than humans presupposes the conclusion. There is no soul as far as anyone can tell. This is a made-up fiction by early humans who had no knowledge of complex autonomous networks as a way to help understand awareness, consciousness, and mainly as a mechanism to coddle themselves with the warm fuzzy notion that oblivion wasn't at the end of life for all of us, which it most certainly is.
There may be a soul. Evidence sir. Evidence and testable propositions. Easy, really. Lacking that, what of value could you possibly have to say about such a thing?
I'm not afraid at all. In fact I'm thinking of ways to test this, but it seems difficult. How can I prove that consciousness is separate from matter itself? What could test this?
If I proved that the energy affects consciousness, it wouldn't prove that it is consciousness, just that it affects consciousness. Still thinking of a reasonable way to test this....
Vitalone,
No that is not appropriate here. In a religious or philosophical debate such as this there are only two arenas – the natural and the supernatural. The natural here is the world of physics i.e. detectable phenomena. Everything else is the supernatural.
I don’t understand the relevance of your question.
And if a soul is discovered it will no longer be a fantasy. Until then IT IS fantasy, with no outlook that it will ever be anything else.
You have a bizarre perspective of the mind. The mind is not something that can be made of anything; it is the effects of neural complexity within the brain. It makes no sense to say the mind is made of something anymore than you can say “justice” is made of something.
No that is not true. To be precise that is what you fantasize to be true.
These are essentially nonsense. The complexity of the brain that gives rise to consciousness and the mind is comprised of vast networks of trillions of neural connections. These connections (the synapses) are not electrical but protein based. The electrical activity within the neurons does generate electromagnetic fields but are so infinitesimally small that if they have any effect it would be insignificant compared to the vastly overriding structures of 200 billion neurons with trillions of connections that form the essential neural networks of the brain.
Not so. It has no nothing to do with faith but everything to do with evidence. If a god or soul exists show us the evidence.
Like I said, consciousness can be altered or destroyed simply by messing with the physical biochemical mechanisms of brain matter. Pretty strong evidence there for a materialistic basis for consciousness and "mind". Alzhiemers patients "lose their mind" as does any dementia patient, due to a degredation of neural functioning and structure.
No, a fantasy is nothing more than an imagination, having no truth, no basis in reality.
Something that is the truth, is a fact, and therefore before it is proven true, it is still a fact, whether you believe it to be a fantasy or not.
In other words you are saying that the Earth being round was fantasy, then it became true when evidence was gathered. What I'm saying is that the Earth is round, it is the truth, at a time in history it was undiscovered to be so, it was not at anytime fantasy.
Well, I'm reffering to what consciousness is made of. The mind idea maybe different.Cris said:
Neurology still cannot explain the "hard problem of consciousness". As what you are saying is that matter IS consciousness, the chemical reactions in your brain are conscious, are experience, are sensation, are thoughts, etc...these reactions are non-different from any other chemical reaction. You are essentially saying matter thinks, sees, has ideas, perception, consciousness, etc....Cris said:
Sure, I have evidence. In the double-slit experiment of QM, electrons exist in a state of superposition when not observed.Cris said:
The brain cannot be the observer, because it too is made of electrons, the electrons that make it also exist in the state of superposition until observed. Therefore the actual observer is independant of matter.
VitalOne,
Not quite. A fantasy is indeed a product of imagination but you just might be able to imagine something that is real and true, and in this case for souls, seemingly highly unlikely. But until anyone shows that souls exist then the idea is fantasy – that is simple fact.
Pretty much what I just said. Your problem is that you can’t show that the concept has any truth – so for now all you have is a fantasy with no way to show otherwise.
Nope not what I said.
Fantasy is not the same as a claim for not true, it is just a claim that has little to no credibility. And the Earth has been considered round for millennia.
Agreed. But there is no credible alternative to the massive neural networks that we know exists. The claim for a soul is simply a call to “and magic happens”.
Not quite. This is where the concept of emergent properties is required. I’ll quote again the examples of a flock of birds and the traffic jam. Each is produced by collections of separate entities and each phenomenon has definite characteristics and behaviors that would not otherwise exist, yet when the component entities disperse then the phenomenons vanish. In a similar way the massive neural networks in the brain form physical patterns that we experience as different phenomenon. And when those neural patterns fade (i.e. we die) then all those emergent phenomena vanish just like a flock of birds when all the birds fly off in different directions.
Not quite – all it means is that we don’t know or can predict the location of the particle.
No no, the behavior of quantum events do not translate into the same behavior of macro events.
Faith as I refer to it, and as I carefully explained earlier is not belief without proof.
It is THE essential ingredient to the next step in human evolution.
Read the following......Scientists on the one hand - including for example top notch ones such as Erwin Schrodinger, Wernher von Braun, Albert Einstein - and religious and spiritual masters, on the other, who hold that faith and reason will both be necessary in order to comprehend reality.
Faith as I described it to you is a revelation...an "understanding", an "epiphany", and not some blind leap into an unknown beyond by dumb luck......as you say.
IT is THE necessary element TO comprehend reality.
..............definition of faith as I have described it from wikipedia.............
Faith is distinct from hope in that faith is typically general, rather than specific to an aspect, and in contrast to a "false hope" in a fantasy, the object of faith typically transcends what can be proven scientifically and sometimes exceeds what can be objectively defined. Faith can mean believing unconditionally. It can be acceptance of something that one has been told by one who is considered trustworthy. Faith, by its very nature, requires belief outside of known fact. Faith is formed through instinct, intuition, meditation, communing with nature, prayer, or perceived usefulness of a belief system. The raison d' etre for faith seems to lie in the fact that to some who have attained to a sufficient depth of it, it 'works' in lieu of, or even in addition to, rational reason, logic and science. In other words, faith and reason to some are 'inimical' while, to some others, both work in their respective spheres and in particular sets of circumstances. It is thus that we have scientists on the one hand - including for example top notch ones such as Erwin Schrodinger, Wernher von Braun, Albert Einstein - and religious and spiritual masters, on the other, who hold that faith and reason will both be necessary in order to comprehend reality in all its mystery, since reason is necessarily conditioned by just the four dimensions of space (comprising three dimensions as its elements) and time (one dimension) and as such rational reasoning, or faith, alone can only scratch the surface of reality. Those who understand limitations of reasoning point out that the mere knowledge of the micro organisms and the macro cosmos through science and application of engineering and technology, will never be able to satisfy the deepest urges of human curiosity and wonderment, and even be sufficient for ensuring the survival and thriving of countless species of organic beings.
I thought we had moved beyond this Cris.
Let's don't waste time talking about what things are not, being negative.
There is so much to explore about what is....
Faith and Reason are needed together.
Lets don't throw either one of them out.
TheVisitor
It is THE essential ingredient to the next step in human evolution.
Read the following......Scientists on the one hand - including for example top notch ones such as Erwin Schrodinger, Wernher von Braun, Albert Einstein - and religious and spiritual masters, on the other, who hold that faith and reason will both be necessary in order to comprehend reality.
Faith as I described it to you is a revelation...an "understanding", an "epiphany", and not some blind leap into an unknown beyond by dumb luck......as you say.
IT is THE necessary element TO comprehend reality.
..............definition of faith as I have described it from wikipedia.............
Faith is distinct from hope in that faith is typically general, rather than specific to an aspect, and in contrast to a "false hope" in a fantasy, the object of faith typically transcends what can be proven scientifically and sometimes exceeds what can be objectively defined. Faith can mean believing unconditionally. It can be acceptance of something that one has been told by one who is considered trustworthy. Faith, by its very nature, requires belief outside of known fact. Faith is formed through instinct, intuition, meditation, communing with nature, prayer, or perceived usefulness of a belief system. The raison d' etre for faith seems to lie in the fact that to some who have attained to a sufficient depth of it, it 'works' in lieu of, or even in addition to, rational reason, logic and science. In other words, faith and reason to some are 'inimical' while, to some others, both work in their respective spheres and in particular sets of circumstances. It is thus that we have scientists on the one hand - including for example top notch ones such as Erwin Schrodinger, Wernher von Braun, Albert Einstein - and religious and spiritual masters, on the other, who hold that faith and reason will both be necessary in order to comprehend reality in all its mystery, since reason is necessarily conditioned by just the four dimensions of space (comprising three dimensions as its elements) and time (one dimension) and as such rational reasoning, or faith, alone can only scratch the surface of reality. Those who understand limitations of reasoning point out that the mere knowledge of the micro organisms and the macro cosmos through science and application of engineering and technology, will never be able to satisfy the deepest urges of human curiosity and wonderment, and even be sufficient for ensuring the survival and thriving of countless species of organic beings.
I thought we had moved beyond this Cris.
Let's don't waste time talking about what things are not, being negative.
There is so much to explore about what is....
Faith and Reason are needed together.
Lets don't throw either one of them out.
TheVisitor
Last edited:
That is the truth.
Just because we don't yet understand something, and it hasn't been proven by the good old boys up at the ranch, doesn't change it's status in reality.
This argument that something doesn't exist because it hasn't yet been proven is the flimsy-est most irrational work of non-sense I've ever heard.
And won't hold water in any hypothetical situation.
Why someone would doggedly hold to something like that when it's so wrong is beyond me.
It sounds more like the intentional instigation of chaos for chaos sake.
That is the absolute opposite of logic, faith or reason.
I think this must all be a big joke Cris is playing on us, because I know he knows better than that.
HA, HA.......real funny Cris.
Last edited:
TheVisitor,
To repeat again there are two distinct types of faith – evidential faith and blind faith. The wikipedia reference mixes them both together and doesn’t make clear distinctions. The first type is more strictly classified as inductive logic, and usually takes the form of statistical evidence, e.g. I have faith in my doctor – because he has known qualifications, i.e. there is some form of evidence on which to base the belief. But where there is a total absence of evidence or facts then such faith is blind faith and classifies every religion known to man.
When you use it in the absence of facts, which is always, then it is simple irrational belief without proof. There is nothing special about it.
Blind religious faith is never required. If you don’t have evidence then you can’t claim to know something and if you do make such claims then you are simply being irrational. There is nothing complicated about this.
Sorry but that is total BS. It is simple irrationality.
To repeat again there are two distinct types of faith – evidential faith and blind faith. The wikipedia reference mixes them both together and doesn’t make clear distinctions. The first type is more strictly classified as inductive logic, and usually takes the form of statistical evidence, e.g. I have faith in my doctor – because he has known qualifications, i.e. there is some form of evidence on which to base the belief. But where there is a total absence of evidence or facts then such faith is blind faith and classifies every religion known to man.
Then stop claiming that blind faith has some form of magical value when there is no evidence to support your claims.
No they are not. Nothing need ever be believed based on blind faith; one always has the rational option to say we don’t know.
Yes let’s. Blind faith, the basis of religious beliefs, has absolutely no redeeming value.
I see your point about something could be considered a fantasy by someone who doesn't understand it as fact...but that never changes the fact it is a fact.
It is only a fantasy in your mind Cris, and burying your head won't make it go away.
You said there is a difference...two kinds of faith at least.
Blind and inductive.
But you continue to make the leap without any supportive proof, saying that ALL religious faith is the blind type.
I said it can be the blind type and agreed with you there to some extent.........and I believe some religions are based on that type primarily, but I also said the type I'm referring to is more of the inductive type.
I came part way to help you understand but you won't budge.
You said faith in your doctor counts as acceptable faith.
If thats true, then the faith I'm referring to is also acceptable for the same means.
Now I've gone to considerable lengths to explain this again.
If you refuse to see it I will have to be forced to concluded you have some other agenda than the revelation of the truth here.
You might be attempting to cloud, diffuse, confuse,and destroy all belief in any kind of Faith for chaos sake.
Is this some chaos theory thing, just a game to you?
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here Cris, that you really would admit it if you knew you were wrong .....I really like our discussions.
But I won't expose myself to constant undue wear - because those old scriptures you say have no value, do have something to say about this in the form of a warning....to me.
"Lest they turn and rend you".
I'm willing to hold a hand out for a while, but if you don't grab the rope....
I'm going on buddy without you.
My belief can rub off on you, or visa versa Cris......
We all have influence upon one another.
What kind of influence are you being upon others.?
Ever think about that.
Even Jesus Himself was hindered by the unbelief of others to the extent He had to dismiss everyone from a house one time to perform a miracle.
Every miracle wore him down, He said virture which is strength went out from Him.
The unbeleif of those around us, can wear you down too.
Last edited:
TheVisitor,
But to your point – I do not feel tired in the least at reminding you of your irrational beliefs. I hope eventually that you will realize that your beliefs have zero value and that you are living in a fantasy delusion.
Then please correct me by showing that any religion you choose has some basis in fact – i.e. prove that a god exists or a soul exists.
Why? Faith in a doctor is based on the precedent that they have qualifications or have references of being capable. What type of precedent or evidence can you show to support your religious claims?
You have yet to present anything that I can identify as truth. You have only made unsupported claims.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
I hope you realize such stories are fictional. No one can show yet that a Jesus ever existed, we certainly have no historical records of what he might have said or done.
But to your point – I do not feel tired in the least at reminding you of your irrational beliefs. I hope eventually that you will realize that your beliefs have zero value and that you are living in a fantasy delusion.
There lies the weakness in your arguement....truth is not reliant on your being able to identify it.
I am glad you could admit that.
I am not here to win an arguement though.
I have more exciting things to do....
Sometimes it is fun, sure to just debate things I guess.
But I have another "agenda" besides debate.
I think we can learn from others and I have learned a great deal here and have a great deal yet to learn....
Even from my own mistakes.
Adios se monana
Last edited:
The original posting appeared to presuppose the "soul" as something meaningful enough to discuss. "Hypothesis" did not actually appear prior to posting #33.
To discuss the soul one needs to know what is meant by the term. I usually find that the soul as that which wills offers a useful starting point for the understanding, if not a finishing point.
Which is obviously false because people do tell, and in good faith. It therefore falls to us to comprehend what they mean by the term. It is offensive, not useful, nor useful nor polite nor effective to attempt to tell them that they mean nothing to us.
The philospophical zombie would certainly think so, a body with no soul. Alternatively, what if we suppose that they possess a soul but you do not, and because of that you fail to comprehend their meaning? Would that make sense or is sense required to own a soul?
The evidence is that people refer to it, and the term would appear to be useful enough to some who do, and to those who understand them. They would not otherwise continue so.
To try to be useful I therefore propose this working definition of the term: The soul, precisely, is whatever people know of themselves but impossible to prove to anybody else.
The suggestion is thus implied to desist from this fatous demand for direct evidence, rather to respect the indirect personal evidence. This in the first instance is where faith is required. According to the law a person of good character is entitled to be believed, to give evidence on the strength of his word, without the need to prove his own perception.
If soul is about anything, it is about the knowing that there is so much more to it all than meets the eye, and the more that is denied, the more you lose the soul.
Last edited:
Sorry to derail the derailment, but I am fascinated by the original post. It is something that I love to bring up to theists to get their brains clicking.
You see, the promise of everlasting life never did much for me. (I'm going to ignore the fact that there is no such thing as a soul, which is what got the thread off-kilter, and pretend for a moment that I am a good dualist and believe in such nonsense) I think Cris' point was that in order for eternal existence to have any meaning, the soul would need certain qualities in the afterlife. A memory and the ability to reason being most key. If you believe most religions, we will also have our usual passions and emotions as well, since God and the angels seemed to all exhibit them.
My problem has always been trying to imagine existing FOREVER like this. You know, a few billion years will go by, and you haven't scratched the surface. How long before you can't even remember your life on Earth? Billions and billions of years..... yeeck No thanks.
Besides, it makes insignificant our time here, and too heavily weights these years.
You see, the promise of everlasting life never did much for me. (I'm going to ignore the fact that there is no such thing as a soul, which is what got the thread off-kilter, and pretend for a moment that I am a good dualist and believe in such nonsense) I think Cris' point was that in order for eternal existence to have any meaning, the soul would need certain qualities in the afterlife. A memory and the ability to reason being most key. If you believe most religions, we will also have our usual passions and emotions as well, since God and the angels seemed to all exhibit them.
My problem has always been trying to imagine existing FOREVER like this. You know, a few billion years will go by, and you haven't scratched the surface. How long before you can't even remember your life on Earth? Billions and billions of years..... yeeck No thanks.
Besides, it makes insignificant our time here, and too heavily weights these years.