Logical fallacy "Appeal to authority"
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
There may be some who think like that, but they certainly aren't calling upon thoroughly defined and explored empirical models when they are doing the recognizing ..... that's why there are some who think like that, and some who don't.
(and amongst those that do think like that, you can see that are primarily concerned with the conceived self .... as opposed to the self as context)
The self arises from brain matter. We have millions of examples of small lesions in the brain changing the way the individual perceives self. There are even examples of people not being able to even recognize their own body as belonging to themselves! Or a leg. etc... our entire reality including ourselves is all created in the brain tissue.
as already mentioned, the conceived self (a derivative of self coined to work in tandem with what you indicate) seems right down your alley .... the self as context stands quite distinct however.
Even in sanskrit, the word for self (atma) means different things in different contexts - ie, the body (something approachable by empiricism), the mind (something perhaps vaguely approachable by empiricism) and the soul (something impossible to approach with empiricism, since its not tenable to see what one is seeing with)
empiricism has inbuilt limitations (IOW its impossible for empiricism to see everything, so labeling everything beyond it as non-existent is childish .... especially when other means of knowing are indicated) .... There is an epistemological great divide that separates all knowable things into two categories –those things we can control and those things we cannot control.
In brief, the conceived self changes, whereas the self as context remains constant.
For instance if you say "I have lost my memory", the "I" in reference is the self as context.
It's still much more reasonable (and much more likely) that there are no such things as souls (or floating Thetian beings from thd "Planet Xenu" either). So, accordingly, the reason why we DO NOT observe (and measure) the soul (or Thetian beings from Planet Xenu) is because such things simply do not exist.
Occam's razor at it's finest edge.
This is regardless of if it is or is not empirically possible to address such concepts.
IMPO I am sure we will, one day, be able to measure a change in how we perceive ourselves as easily as we measure grams of NaCl on a scale. AND, that's because "the conceived self" and "the self as context" completely and entirely reside in brain tissue.
Last edited:
once again, empiricism has inbuilt limitations (IOW its impossible for empiricism to see everything, so labeling everything beyond it as non-existent is childish .... especially when other means of knowing are indicated) .... There is an epistemological great divide that separates all knowable things into two categories –those things we can control and those things we cannot control.
metaphysical claims (or "rain cheques") and empiricism make awful bedfellows
I didn't say that empiricism wasn't a limited process, only that it's highly unlikely that either Theta beings or Souls exist ... and that is the obvious answer as to why have never been observed and are not observed. It seems that the rational opinion would be that they do not exist. There's no need to make up an entity called a soul that doesn't have any reason to be made up to explain any natural phenomena.
Other ways of obtaining information are often proven to be unreliable.
On the contrary, determining the existence of a soul via empiricism is even more highly unlikely, much like it is highly unlikely that one is one's own biological father, that one can lick honey off one's elbows or jump over one's knees.
Only if you are working with the premise that empiricism has the monopoly on all claims of knowledge (much like if you work with the premise that all pigs can fly and horses are pigs, its rational to conclude that all horses can fly)
and your explanations (particularly as they pertain to things currently beyond the purview of empiricism ... aka the rain cheques) are not made up?
Using empiricism to determine metaphysical claims is always unreliable.
Two statements:
1)
Empirically determining the existence of the Xenuic Alien Thatian bodies (from the Planet Xenu) that inhabit the human of Scientologists (well all of us really) is equally as unlikely as emperically determining that Human Soulz exist.
2)
The reason why these are EQUALLY unlikely, are because neither Xenuic Alien Thatian bodies from the Planet Xenu NOR souls actually exist!
Which of these statements do you agree with?
MII
PS:
Do you agree that there is no good evidence for souls?
Neither, simply because the claim doesn't even theoretically exist within the parameters of the methodology.
Kind of like asking whether you agree that you can use a tape measure to determine the temperature or whether you agree that you can't because temperature doesn't exist.
empirically speaking, yes
much like there is no good evidence for temperature on the strength of tape measures
Well, LG at least the Scientologists provide machines that actually "measure" your theta bodys! I know because I walked past some on the street doing "measurements". For $599 I think they can even run some other "tests" Oh, and then, one day, a Scientologists told me he even SAW his Xenuic theta body and for only $999 he'll show you too!
How about you LG? Got any evidence for the Soul? I mean, other than anecdotal?
Oh, and then, one day, a Scientologists told me he even SAW his Xenuic theta body and for only $999 he'll show you too! How about you LG? Got any evidence for the Soul? I mean, other than anecdotal?
Frankly scientologists have never struck me as philosophically astute .... but anyway, if they claim they have measured a theta body (whatever the hell that may achieve) they are making an empirical claim, which is probably why you enjoy making a real field day out of their claimsWell, LG at least the Scientologists provide machines that actually "measure" your theta bodys! I know because I walked past some on the street doing "measurements". For $599 I think they can even run some other "tests"
Yet once again ... There is an epistemological great divide that separates all knowable things into two categories –those things we can control and those things we cannot control.
Since it appears that theta bodies are empirical, it seems they stand on one side of the divide and souls on the other (so mixing methodologies is as purposeful as measuring temperature with a tape measure).
I hope this is beginning to make sense by now.
My question to you, is how would you propose that one measure/know something that one cannot control/is greater than us?
(particularly if that something is conscious)
I can not control a supernova, but, because it exists it can be observed and measured. And supernova's are in fact measured.
There is no good evidence that souls exist. Only Anecdotal evidence.
As a matter of fact, in the past, people had MORE than one soul. Egyptians had at least two. Greeks were of the mind that many spirits were breathed in and housed into the body, that's what animated the body. You possibly believe there is one "great" spirit and you are a part of it? Or maybe you think you have your own, and when you die it will continue to live and be you.
If you were a Scientologist then you'd believe you had a bunch of thetan bodies inhabiting your flesh along with your own ghost.
etc...
These are all equally likely to be true. But, as there is ZERO good evidence for them, they are most likely not true.
There is no good evidence that souls exist. Only Anecdotal evidence.
As a matter of fact, in the past, people had MORE than one soul. Egyptians had at least two. Greeks were of the mind that many spirits were breathed in and housed into the body, that's what animated the body. You possibly believe there is one "great" spirit and you are a part of it? Or maybe you think you have your own, and when you die it will continue to live and be you.
If you were a Scientologist then you'd believe you had a bunch of thetan bodies inhabiting your flesh along with your own ghost.
etc...
These are all equally likely to be true. But, as there is ZERO good evidence for them, they are most likely not true.
therefore a supernova's lack of consciousness makes us greater than it in one respect
further details on what being beyond our control entails
there is no good evidence for temperature amongst adamant tape measurists either ...
for those who remain outside the methodologies (regardless of whether we are discussing religion or science) what else would you expect?
you could also say that there are many types of coconut too
Is this coconut?
or maybe this is coconut?
or maybe this?
When will the coconut hypocrisy end?
Last edited:
LG, if the "soul" exists and is non-material, please can you explain how it interacts with the material realm.
Likewise, if your god is non-material, please can you explain exactly how you are able to observe it, or experience it?
Basically, please explain how these non-material things you claim exist can cross over to have an impact in the material realm to enable you to have the observation or experience you claim.
E.g. if the soul is non-material - how exactly does it interact with the material part of our body?
Likewise, if your god is non-material, please can you explain exactly how you are able to observe it, or experience it?
Basically, please explain how these non-material things you claim exist can cross over to have an impact in the material realm to enable you to have the observation or experience you claim.
E.g. if the soul is non-material - how exactly does it interact with the material part of our body?
Well this is exactly the point isn't it. How can LG say there is a "soul" and at the same time say it is immaterial.
Or one could say it's power makes it much greater than us.
Sure you can, you measure the temperature of adamant tape measurements (people who are adamant about tape measuring - an architect? Engineer? Carpenter?)