Irrationality and illogicality - Psychic pheno

Quantum Quack said:
So, in my opinion, it is important to be able to accept illogical and irrationality until the appropriate logic and rational can be found. With out this acceptance, the truth may be considered as false, delusion or illusion and discounted as fiction or fantasy... and therefore never validated or understood.
Click to expand...

In science, I would discourage "accepting" something until you can safely assume it's correct.

However, perhaps there's some merit in this idea for common practice, for those of us who aren't scientists.

Thanks for sharing.
 
I am suggesting that truth by it's very nature must be ultimately proven to be logical and quite rational however in the process of achieving this rational and logic we must accept that the truth that we are exploring is currently illogical and irrational.

Say for example I use this formula to describe exnhilo creation:

0 = 0|0 = >0|0<

and you say "yep that certainly appears to be irrational and illogical". I say "if you have the next 30 years maybe I can make you see the sense in it I see"

But to do so you would have to accept that the formula is to you irrational and illogical. Where as to me I have to accept that this is your position and yet maintian mine which is that it is very rational and logical. [ a bit like explaining Special relativity to a primary school student]

Or I might say that yes a soul exists because I can see it and you might say, well how do you explain such an existance. I would say well until we learn how to make the relationship of soul to body and mind explainable we can not endeavour to comprehend the logic. Using current knowledge and rational we are unable to rationalise such a thing. However does this inability to rationalise or explain the event to a second party invalidate the expereince of "seeing souls"? [ as distinct from ghosts ]

Is "soul seeing" able to be tested by science and will it ever be able to be tested?

If unable to be tested does this invalidate the truth of the soul?
 
Athelwulf said:
From a scientific standpoint, the lack of evidence for the existence of the soul is in itself evidence against it.

Do you think there is a soul? If so, how do you know?
Click to expand...

yes, yes, evidence against it, but not concrete proof against it's existence. I believe in the possibility of a soul. Let me define what I think a soul is before this turns into another ugly argument I have had with other people. I think a soul is partly made up of our humanity; the ability to love, hate, kill, protect that which we cherish. I think a soul is a complex variety of the energy our living bodies create, our consciousness and subconsciouness, and the most powerful emotions that drive us to sometimes do unspeakable things. I don't think that when we die a slightly transparent version of ourself floats around and thinks and feels like we did when alive. In truth, I cannot truly say what a soul is. To me it is a feeling, a sense of self, a sense of things far greater and maybe even terrible, outside of me. I do not know if a soul exists. Nor would I claim to. I believe from personal experiences that I have had, in the existence of a "soul". To define what a soul is is almost impossible to someone who has never felt the presence of one themselves. Not to say that this is wrong in any sense. We take what we know from personal experiences and form our own conclusions when no other answers are available. I think when we die, we leave an imprint, not only from our actions but in those of the other lives we have touched. This in itself creates immortality. A soul is such a common term to use, but maybe not always the right one. I believe I have felt the presence of something, a "soul", if that is what we are calling it. I believe that there is something inside me that is infinite, that even I cannot comprehend. I do not know why. It is a gut feeling, like when you know something bad is going to happen and it does. Maybe it is instinct, natural human instinct. Whatever you want to call it...I believe there is more then what we see and claim to logically know and rationalize and understand. I would think it arrogant to say the universe is entirely logical and concrete and that we know all the answers. I know none of them. I guess I choose to believe in this feeling, this understanding of self, and call it "soul". People would call this fantasy, childish, illogical, but it makes sense to me and that rests okay with me. It doesn't make me feel like I have a greater purpose, nor does it even make me sleep better at night, in fact I believe, in many ways, the thought of a soul can be quite terrifying. From my experience, not everything left behind after death is good. What about you, soul, no soul...what do you think? Scientifically speaking, to believe in a soul seems illogical, but what about science aside? Do you ever feel...I don't know...that strangeness inside you that you can't explain?
 
"Your perspective--to me--seems to be summed by the statement "We investigate the world at extremely fine scales today."

This is called reductionism.

To those who deny the existence of the soul (as a human-construct as oppose to created by imaginary entity) I ask you this:

Exactly what amount of time have you spent looking for your soul?
 
zenbabelfish said:
"Your perspective--to me--seems to be summed by the statement "We investigate the world at extremely fine scales today."

This is called reductionism.

To those who deny the existence of the soul (as a human-construct as oppose to created by imaginary entity) I ask you this:

Exactly what amount of time have you spent looking for your soul?
Click to expand...

The big problem I see here (from person to person) is in defining what exactly the soul is. And words/language just don't seem to cut it. Or at least the ones we use.
 
Good point Roy - so we could examine symbolic language as a means of describing the soul and look for correlates for a possible location?

In the study of early humans we see the same symbols cropping up universally - they appear to correlate with modern descriptions of Near Death Experiences, visions of mystics, art, drug experiences, religious experiences, computer-generated reality, etc.
 
zenbabelfish said:
"Most science is based on the presuppostion that things such as the soul or a higher power do not exist, therefore any answers they seek will only be to prove that their belief is right."

I don't think this is true - after all scientists have souls too. The difference is that many would regard the soul as created by each person through the act of living - a bio-psychological phenomena; whilst others may imagine the soul as created by an imaginary entity.
Click to expand...

I did not mean to insult you, saying that you are a souless scientist. From my personal encounters with scientists, not all of course, but most, many agree that to believe in a soul is illogical. In fact many scientists claim that all scientists should be athiests. And you are right, the definition of a soul is not universal, therefore arguing for or against it makes it extremely hard. What I think a soul is might be very different from your idea. Soul or no soul, we all have to agree to disagree. There is no right answer.
 
Thanks, this is a great thread (aren't they all?) and I accept that you didn't mean to insult scientists nor I you or anyone else...its just a great forum for people of differing viewpoints to communicate and I hope demonstate that we are all very similarly human.

Re: the irrational definition of the rational soul:
"The definition of a soul is not universal, therefore arguing for or against it makes it extremely hard. What I think a soul is might be very different from your idea. Soul or no soul, we all have to agree to disagree. There is no right answer."
Unless a symbolic language can be used that was universally agreed on as describing the soul. This is what I am proposing.
 
OK Superluminal...I think our irrational primal mind (the one that we left behind for a modern concrete mind but still surfaces in art, religion, etc.) intuitively understands, by rote, that a region/coordinate/phenomena exists that we can for now (without description) call the 'soul'. (Personally I think this area is like the blind spot in the perceptual mechanism only this is a cognitive fovea.)

So how do we, with our concrete minds, determine this 'soul' - if we hypothesize that it exists then how would we describe it, identify it and correlate that it was the same phenomena that others perceived.

I think we must look to the products of the unconscious mind - throughout and prior to human history. We must identify the artifacts and ecofacts that compose the symbolic languages of our predecessors and tally this with current experiential accounts, and the latest scientific research.

Its a start...
 
jessiej920 said:
In fact many scientists claim that all scientists should be athiests.
Click to expand...
This is that reluctant part of the human instinct that desires to force others into what has worked (or they believe has worked) for them. And they only believe that it works for them because they are used to it, having done things that way for so long. They get stuck in a rut. But this happens to everyone, just in different ways. That is why we have to work together and accept each others' limitations so that we can fill in for them with our own skills. We can all see something that no one else can.

Anyways. I think that the best scientist (adhering to the rules of science) would be one who has no pre-conceived beliefs. A true agnostic. He realizes that there are beliefs, but sits directly on the fence, instead of on one side. You can see a lot more from the middle.

jessiej920 said:
And you are right, the definition of a soul is not universal, therefore arguing for or against it makes it extremely hard. What I think a soul is might be very different from your idea. Soul or no soul, we all have to agree to disagree. There is no right answer.
Click to expand...
They're all just words anyways. I'll tell you what the soul is. The soul is a word that when spoken causes people to think of moments in their past when they've heard or associated that sound/symbol to what was going on around them. The soul is that button that you or someone else can push to cause you to sum up your existence. What we see is a collage of all we've ever seen.

superluminal said:
After millenia of babbling about gods and souls, I think, as athelwulf said, the resounding lack of anything resembling a "soul" (i.e. some essence that not only survives death, but carries on the individual consciousness), no matter how closely or how broadly we look, is clear evidence for the non-existence of such a thing.

Those who insist that a soul is a reasonable hypothesis are simply in denial. Reasonable hypotheses are reasonable for a reason, They explain something better or more thoroughly than something else and they have evidence to support them.

There may be a soul. Who gives a fuck? Only those who are so childishly afraid of death. Is there a shred of a reason to think there's a soul? Of course not. It's a fantasy born of human fear. That's all.

Care to try to convince me otherwise? Go for it.
Click to expand...
Hypotheses are reasonable only because we can all clearly point out how the pieces relate to the actual world. They become irrational only because they are vague and/or the person reading it doesn't understand what the person wrote it meant. This is because the person reading it and the person writing it have different definitions of the terms, or perhaps they don't understand them at all. We all associate terms, but we all associate them to different experiences. A person can associate the term 'squirrel' to the ring of a telephone. What matters is what is meant--which more times than not is lost in the conveyance.
 
RoyLennigan said:
This is that reluctant part of the human instinct that desires to force others into what has worked (or they believe has worked) for them. And they only believe that it works for them because they are used to it, having done things that way for so long. They get stuck in a rut. But this happens to everyone, just in different ways. That is why we have to work together and accept each others' limitations so that we can fill in for them with our own skills. We can all see something that no one else can.

Anyways. I think that the best scientist (adhering to the rules of science) would be one who has no pre-conceived beliefs. A true agnostic. He realizes that there are beliefs, but sits directly on the fence, instead of on one side. You can see a lot more from the middle..
Click to expand...

This I truly believe. If you completely discount the other side then the arguments you make are not true arguments, they are biased and you are blindsided. You will interpret and use any findings to only fit or justify your "side of the fence".


[/QUOTE]They're all just words anyways. I'll tell you what the soul is. The soul is a word that when spoken causes people to think of moments in their past when they've heard or associated that sound/symbol to what was going on around them. The soul is that button that you or someone else can push to cause you to sum up your existence. What we see is a collage of all we've ever seen.[/QUOTE]

Yes, soul is just another word. A word with a thousand different meanings, but as you said a universal association is applied. We can say "soul" and suddenly we all think that the other person understands what we mean. A soul is a symbol, but what that symbol means to you personally or how you interpret it, is quite different.
 
superluminal said:
Fair enough. But I also think this approach has been taken many times and come up empty. I'll say it again. There could be a soul. But without some compelling reason to think so, other than "it feels like there ought to be one...", I don't see what all the fuss is about. There are an infinity of ideas about the possible unseen attributes of the cosmos (souls being only one of them). Should we spend inordinate amounts of time discussing the FSM? Oh, wait. We do... :D :m:
Click to expand...

Many approaches have been tried and tried again - e.g. people didn't believe bacteria existed at one time; or the solar system.

What about dark matter or superluminal flight - should we abandon our research as predecessors have failed (or as I term it - created fertile ground)?

This doesn't mean that another approach will be successful...but it might-be and I suggest its the might-be that move science on; every hour we have access to increasing amount of information that can be cross-checked and analysed...we have learnt methodologies and terminologies that free us from the shackles of previous attempts.

My main contention is that reports of 'the soul' are universal, across cultures, and throughout human history and verifiable today...without recourse to religious explanation.
 
superluminal said:
After millenia of babbling about gods and souls, I think, as athelwulf said, the resounding lack of anything resembling a "soul" (i.e. some essence that not only survives death, but carries on the individual consciousness), no matter how closely or how broadly we look, is clear evidence for the non-existence of such a thing.

Those who insist that a soul is a reasonable hypothesis are simply in denial. Reasonable hypotheses are reasonable for a reason, They explain something better or more thoroughly than something else and they have evidence to support them.

There may be a soul. Who gives a fuck? Only those who are so childishly afraid of death. Is there a shred of a reason to think there's a soul? Of course not. It's a fantasy born of human fear. That's all.

Care to try to convince me otherwise? Go for it.
Click to expand...

There is no need to convince anyone. Babbling on about souls and gods is half the fun!:D It's all just words and ideas and contemplation. Why though, does one have to fear death if they believe in a soul? Couldn't you say that not believing, is the same type of fear? Fear that they might exist eternally in some state, some where, forever? fear that they can't explain why this might happen? Fear that it will and they can't stop it? We all fear the unknown, whether we believe in a soul or not. Please, I do not mean this to be confrontational in any way. Like you said, do we really give a fuck? These are just questions, not arguments. I like to discuss...not fight. :)
 
Superluminal - Imagine you are in a Virtual Reality environment and an avatar (representing a real person) came into your field of view and told you there was an island in the distance.
You cannot see the island but the avatar insists that it is there from personal experience...you are unsure but again and again avatars tell you that this island exists.
Wouldn't you want to fly through hyperspace to have a look?

I've never once suggested that 'the soul' is anything more than a psychological phenomena created by a human in their own lifetime (check if you want); why it may appear to others that it is an external phenomena is due to the cultural transmission of human self-reporting...what is internally-derived has been symbolised culturally.
The other questions you pose to me have already been answered in my previous posts.

Also I specifically suggested that any analysis should include; artifacts, ecofacts, the latest scientific techniques and self-reporting - so please try not to misrepresent my position by omission. Thank you.
 
superluminal said:
Roy,

You can make all the semantic distinctions you want. What's a soul?
Click to expand...

Semantics has more to it than just word symbolism. Your very thoughts are subject to semantics, even to yourself, for instance.

As for what a soul is, I cannot tell you. I cannot tell you because if I tried, I would only be excersizing futility. We only know what we have experienced, so I could not possibly convey to you my own experiences. I could only recall your own experiences in an order that you aren't so familiar with, as I am doing now. To you, a soul is whatever subjective experience(s) you have that you automatically associate to the term "soul".
 
Soul is consciousness.
It is self-evident that consciousness is immaterial.
To say that consciousness is actually material would require some proof. There is not a shred of evidence that consciousness is material. There has not been a single scientific study that supports the hypothesis that consciousness is material. Furthermore, scientists do not even know how to go about testing such a hypothesis. In other words, stating that the mind is material is a massive leap of faith by scientific materialism fundamentalists that are making an assertion that has not been proven or even tested by actual science. There is as much empirical validation backing up the belief that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon as there is empirical validation backing up intelligent design.
 
Last edited:
The mechanisms that create consciousness are material and there is hypothesis testing regarding mental representation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top