what?Why not.. maybe it has something to do with intelligence ?
terming despair and existential despair as non-different?
Russell's teapot
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
terming despair and existential despair as non-different?
once again, thats not how hard nosed empiricism works
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Well, lets have it then.. show me how it works. Prove your 'theory' the hard-nosed way.
Hard-nosed empiricism works by taking all the evidence into account.
Soft-nosed empiricism works by looking at some of the evidence
Non-empiricism works by manufacturing the evidence which it claims is only accessible to the priveliged few.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I am not advocating empiricism
you are
assuming that they have consciousness, I don't see how we haven't
consciousness, or being alive, is the symptom of the soul. It is what distinguishes a living person from a dead one
Enough crap ! Consciousness has fuck all to do with souls, which have never been shown to exist. Consciousness is a by-product of cerebral activity. Is that so difficult to understand ? A damaged brain may lead to a state of unconsciousness, which illustrates that consciousness is brain-dependent. In plain English, consciousness has no independent existence.
O...K....
:bugeye:
LG,
Consciousness is already ill defined, why postulate a soul? You write that consciousness is the same as being alive. But the truth is animals (including humans) can be unconscious and still be alive. You write that being alive is a symptom of the soul. Again, why postulate a soul? This is pure hyperbole, pure conjecture. There is no good evidence for a soul. You write that a soul distinguishes a living person from a dead one. But you equate consciousness with a soul. Obviously an unconscious person can be alive. And many things such as plants are not "conscious" yet they are alive. So, again, we can see that soul does nothing but muddy the waters.
Michael
Consciousness is already ill defined, why postulate a soul? You write that consciousness is the same as being alive. But the truth is animals (including humans) can be unconscious and still be alive. You write that being alive is a symptom of the soul. Again, why postulate a soul? This is pure hyperbole, pure conjecture. There is no good evidence for a soul. You write that a soul distinguishes a living person from a dead one. But you equate consciousness with a soul. Obviously an unconscious person can be alive. And many things such as plants are not "conscious" yet they are alive. So, again, we can see that soul does nothing but muddy the waters.
Michael
by use of the word consciousness I mean "self as context" as opposed to "conceived self"
the simple fact that we make distinctions between a dead person and a person sleeping or in a coma necessitates special language
The ever present I, as in the I that is HERE and NOW, is a perspective but one I think that is hardwired pretty deeply into our CNS. I still do not think there is a need of a spirit when discussing consciousness. The act of "oneness" may simply be (i) redirecting blood away from an area that normally makes sense of: "This is Me, This is not Me" so that the "I, HERE NOW, that we all normally experience day to day is gone. (ii) some drugs seem to have similar effects.
As to "conceived self" yes this can change and I think it is a different think than the "self in context" (as I understand it).
I don't think a "spirit" needs to be invoked to talk about such concepts.
As to "conceived self" yes this can change and I think it is a different think than the "self in context" (as I understand it).
I don't think a "spirit" needs to be invoked to talk about such concepts.
No, but to live a life, to act it is necessary to have a sense of self, and often a very abstract sense of self that seems impossible to prove with empirical methods.
For example, in order to get through the hardship of poverty or illness, one needs to disidentify with the body, disidentify with certain feelings and certain thoughts. If one would continue thinking things like "I am poor" or "I am ill" and consider them to be more than common designations and instead be metaphysical truths, then one would likely not be able to do anything about being poor or ill.
regardless of which ever way you conceive it, the fact remains that you are an individual with a sense of "I" that is not affected by time (you weren't any less "yourself" ten years ago).
Of course you can speculate in any one of a million ways about how there is some referable aspect of our biological make up that gives this sense of I (you can find many neat ideas on the subject in science fiction).
But as far as transcendental knowledge is concerned, that referable aspect is the soul.
Well, so much for what you call transcendental knowledge. The sense of continuity to which you refer can be perfectly explained in terms of memory and our personal history. It all happens in the brain. Brain damage and disease can lead to a loss of sense of self. So, the putative soul must also be damaged, showing that it is not necessary to invent a soul to explain anything. You are conflating it with consciousness such that it explains nothing.