SOUL - Who? What? Where?

[superluminal]

Not surprising since the methodology you are working out of to determine the soul doesn't even see consciousness - so even if you are thinking about this it indicates that this methodology is vastly incomplete

In case you haven't noticed, there is only matter,energy, and the mediators of force in the universe. I gather that the very existence of "consciousness" is your evidence for a soul. Can you not see how this is completely usless as an explanation of anything?

Still there is no evidence that the brain is the final last word in determining our sense of "self" -

Never said it was. Just that given the state of evidence for anything else, it's incredibly likely that it is. 99.9999+%.

all that your refer to in neurology is how the brain is "driving", it says nothing about the phenomena of driving- for instance an engine can be faulty in a car and thus cause the car to drive in a faulty fashion - but even a car with a perfect engine goes no where without a driver - in other words the phenomena of a car moving, while utilised according to the functioning of the engine, is actually dependent on the driver.

These little analogies may be cute to use on your six-year-old sunday school kids, but they illuminate nothing in a serious discussion of the nature of self and consciousness.

But the driver is still there - after all if there was no consciousness there would be no "self" to wonder about the "self"

Ever hear of self-referential or recursive programs? They work quite well. They refer to or "call" themselves to solve iterative problems. There's nothing amazing about this phenomenon. Only to people (like physicists and theologians) who have no knowledge that we can even do this with computers and microcontrollers.

Obviously not since they still have a sense of self

Then what, pray tell, has happened to the essence of their "self"? I'd really like you to answer this one. If this sense of self is a seperate, driving "essence" how can a little physical brain damage disturb that?

Well maybe you should just deliver the goods and tell us all what this evidence is that consciousness can be explained by a reductionist view rather than just alluding to it through bold opinion - Imagine all these qualified and experienced researchers out there unable to reconcile the notion of consciousness and you have it in your pocket - I want to be able to say that I heard it first on sci forums

Oh boy.

1) The absolute lack of any observation of anything but known forces and matter in the brain.

2) Evidence from the effects of physical brain injury on consciousness and sense of "self".

3) Functional MRI and PET scans showing specific brain activity (neurochemical and electrical activity) in people considering different things including deep self-reflection.

These are all very compelling bits that point very strongly to a neurochemical/neurophysiological origin of consciousness.

Remember - you heard it first here...

 

[lightgigantic]

All you are referring (in the way of scans etc) to is the observation of how consciousness exists in the body - no doubt the brain is an important part of our body - but when it comes to an analysis of the brain by reductionist theory all we are left with is neurons and electrons which tell us nothing about the distinctions between dull matter and lifeless matter - this is the precise basis for this array of quotes by a variety of scientists

"in my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So , in my old age, I am now retracing my steps " Szent Gyorgyi

"the results of the scientific search in which, during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born

"It is premature to reduce the vital process to the quite insufficiently developed conception of 19th and even 20th century chemistry and physics" Louis de Broglie

"I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in prmissory materialism to account eventually for all teh spiritual world in term sof patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition ... we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in the material world " - Eccles

"We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is a major area of dispute" Stanley Miller

"there are several tenable theories about the origin of organic material on the primitive earth, but in no case is the supporting evidence compelling" Leslie Orgel

"At present, the gap from the primal soup to the first RNA system capable of natural selection looks forbiddingly wide" - Francis Crick

"The legal issue of responsibility seems to imply that there is indeed within each of us, some kind of an independant self with its own responsibilities - and by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance or chance" - Penrose

"thought processes as well as consciousness are the primary concepts, ... our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness, and this consciousness cannot therefore be denied" Wigner

 

[lightgigantic]

The poor souls, I feel so sorry for them, to have barked up the wrong tree for so long but with never a sniff of the cat that ran, let alone the chance to bite the tail off.

--- Ron.

At least they are honest to admit they never sniffed the cat - what can be said about those who boast about the flavour of the tails they have snaffled???

 

[superluminal]

Another really super dooper response from LG.

 

[lightgigantic]

Another really super dooper response from LG.

Whenever you are prepared to quote scientific authority outside of Isaac Asimov let me know

 

[superluminal]

Whenever you are prepared to quote scientific authority outside of Isaac Asimov let me know

Why would I do such a thing? I'll quote known facts, but you'll never see me quoting some scientist as a basis for an argument. Especially on a subject outside his or her field.

 

[Godless]

Oh! he seeks to manipulate you Super, (My scientists are smarter then your scientists) My scientists are all theists and have gone to Harvard, how about yours? Na,na,na, I'm better at quoting scientist than you supper!)

Don't fall for this dimwits game.

 

[superluminal]

Oh! he seeks to manipulate you Super, (My scientists are smarter then your scientists) My scientists are all theists and have gone to Harvard, how about yours? Na,na,na, I'm better at quoting scientist than you supper!)

Don't fall for this dimwits game.

Don't worry. It's obvious that he dosen't have a leg to stand on. And quoting Asimov would probably trump anyone he's quoted yet. He apparently dosen't know that Asimov was a PhD chemist, and extremely well read and published in a huge variety of subjects. For instance, he wrote "Asimov's Guide to The Bible" (among dozens of other "guides"). Of course he was an atheist (humanist).

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh! he seeks to manipulate you Super, (My scientists are smarter then your scientists) My scientists are all theists and have gone to Harvard, how about yours? Na,na,na, I'm better at quoting scientist than you supper!)

Don't fall for this dimwits game.

On the contrary I haven't even heard him quote one scientific authority - not just dropping names but I mean a single scientific process that establishes how life comes from matter-

The fact still stands - until you can prove your statements regarding molecular evolution all you have is theories

 

[Godless]

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Now shut the fuck up and study up!

 

[lightgigantic]

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Now shut the fuck up and study up!

In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin.

seems like they are also in agreement that science operates out of established authorities

 

[superluminal]

In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin.

seems like they are also in agreement that science operates out of established authorities

What do you mean "operates out of established authorities"? Science builds on the results of the theories and experiments of others. Of course, the "authority" of a given excellent scientist in his field is worth a great deal to the advancement of that field and those studying the field. But no result in science is based on anyones "authority" as if some scientist could say "thus and such is true because I say so". That's patently rediculous. And if that's what you think, then you have bigger problems than we all figure...

Maybe you can wrap your head around this. No one has proof that life arises from "dull" matter as you so inflammatorily like to put it. We have theoretical models, and circumstantial evidence, and that's it. Until we learn more and then create life (a simple replicator would do) in the lab, then the exact process is obvously not known.

No one in the world or on this forum has ever said that abiogenesis was a 100% proven fact. I've said that it's 99.999% likely given the facts that we are here, we're made of matter, and there's ZERO reason to think that life is anything more than just one of the more interesting kinds of molecules we have yet to learn how to synthesize.

Your whole approach of using this one unknown as a crutch for your god delusion is sad in that it ignores a wealth of scientific advancement in organic chemistry, and is going to make it just that much harder for you to adjust when we do synthesize life in the lab. And we will do it. You and I may be dead, but there are only two possible endpoints of the scientific pursuit of lab abiogenesis:

1) We succeed, and what we already know is confirmed, or

2) We fail and in the process discover that there is indeed a heretofore unknown "essence" that is revealed by 22nd century quantum tunnelling organic life energy sensors. Or whatever. Or god shows up to finally put a stop to it all. Treading on his turf, as it were.

But you can clearly understand why the "get on your knees and praise the creator of life" approach is not very interesting and not very educational given the mind-numbing subservience to a cultural delusion that it is.

So LG, what in the hell are you actually arguing here? You seem to be arguing that the idea of abiogenesis as proven fact is nonsense. We agree with you. Are you arguing that the opposite - life came from god, or some other "thing" - is fact? You seem to be.

If you're not, then we are in agreement. The origin of life is still unknown. The only fruitful avenue of research for those interested in it is to follow the clues of organic and molecular chemistry. Surely you agree whit this?

 

[Sarkus]

One more point to add to Superluminal's post: even if / when someone manages to "create life" in the lab - this still is not "proof" of how life began on planet Earth.
All it would be proof of is that creation of life from dull matter is possible - and that the conditions used in the lab are one set of conditions that enable it to occur.
But we can never know for sure that it was the way life began on Earth - as we can never be 100% sure of the conditions and events etc that give rise to every possible set of conditions.

 

[Lord Insane]

Soul music might have soul - any other souls are only in the fantasy of religious persons !!!!!!

 

[heavymetal]

All you are referring (in the way of scans etc) to is the observation of how consciousness exists in the body - no doubt the brain is an important part of our body - but when it comes to an analysis of the brain by reductionist theory all we are left with is neurons and electrons which tell us nothing about the distinctions between dull matter and lifeless matter - this is the precise basis for this array of quotes by a variety of scientists

"in my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So , in my old age, I am now retracing my steps " Szent Gyorgyi

"the results of the scientific search in which, during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born

"It is premature to reduce the vital process to the quite insufficiently developed conception of 19th and even 20th century chemistry and physics" Louis de Broglie

"I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in prmissory materialism to account eventually for all teh spiritual world in term sof patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition ... we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in the material world " - Eccles

"We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is a major area of dispute" Stanley Miller

"there are several tenable theories about the origin of organic material on the primitive earth, but in no case is the supporting evidence compelling" Leslie Orgel

"At present, the gap from the primal soup to the first RNA system capable of natural selection looks forbiddingly wide" - Francis Crick

"The legal issue of responsibility seems to imply that there is indeed within each of us, some kind of an independant self with its own responsibilities - and by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance or chance" - Penrose

"thought processes as well as consciousness are the primary concepts, ... our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness, and this consciousness cannot therefore be denied" Wigner

I haven´t read your posts before LightG - but I like that you use famous people´s quotes - it is a sure sign, that you are running out of valid arguments yourself !!!

Have a nice day

 

[superluminal]

One more point to add to Superluminal's post: even if / when someone manages to "create life" in the lab - this still is not "proof" of how life began on planet Earth.
All it would be proof of is that creation of life from dull matter is possible - and that the conditions used in the lab are one set of conditions that enable it to occur.
But we can never know for sure that it was the way life began on Earth - as we can never be 100% sure of the conditions and events etc that give rise to every possible set of conditions.

And we are clearly not 100% sure that we will see the sun tomorrow. Or that a dropped book will indeed fall to the floor.

 

[c7ityi_]

Soul/spirit/God/life is consciousness. It can never die. We are all one consciousness, and infinite bodies are connected to it. One consciousness controls all of them.

You perceive many human bodies but only consciousness. Why assume there are several?

* Without the trappings of my ego, who am I? What’s left?
* If I lost my memory, would I still be me?
* If all the molecules in my body are replaced by new ones every couple years, then what does that say about my identity? At what point do those new molecules switch from being "not me" to "me?"
* Why do I assume that another person is any less me than my own body?
* Why the heck am I conscious? Why the heck am I even able to ask, "Why the heck am I conscious?"
* If my body dies, what happens to my consciousness? Am I the body or the consciousness?

 

[lightgigantic]

superluminal

What do you mean "operates out of established authorities"? Science builds on the results of the theories and experiments of others. Of course, the "authority" of a given excellent scientist in his field is worth a great deal to the advancement of that field and those studying the field. But no result in science is based on anyones "authority" as if some scientist could say "thus and such is true because I say so". That's patently rediculous. And if that's what you think, then you have bigger problems than we all figure...

Thats exactly what I mean by authority - like for instance what is the ratio of people who have measured the accuracy of axioms in science compared to those that simply rely on the "authority" of them for their research or even statements?

Maybe you can wrap your head around this. No one has proof that life arises from "dull" matter as you so inflammatorily like to put it. We have theoretical models, and circumstantial evidence, and that's it. Until we learn more and then create life (a simple replicator would do) in the lab, then the exact process is obvously not known.

What is abiogenesis if not the theory that life evolved from matter?
But you are right - until life is actually created from matter it remains a theory

No one in the world or on this forum has ever said that abiogenesis was a 100% proven fact. I've said that it's 99.999% likely given the facts that we are here, we're made of matter, and there's ZERO reason to think that life is anything more than just one of the more interesting kinds of molecules we have yet to learn how to synthesize.

99.9999% is something you could maybe state for polio vaccinations or the technology that goes into alloy fabrication - its definitely not the correct number for determining how life comes from matter - basically all that exists for micro evolutionists is the synthesizing of some of the chemical mechanisms that life forms utilizes - not even dna has been synthesized and dna is not even life - maybe you could explain how you arrived at 99.9999% because it doesn't seem like a very credible claim even after a mere cursory examination of the evidence at hand

Your whole approach of using this one unknown as a crutch for your god delusion is sad in that it ignores a wealth of scientific advancement in organic chemistry, and is going to make it just that much harder for you to adjust when we do synthesize life in the lab.

Its ironic that you deride the "god done it" idea but instead rely on the "matter done it" idea - the fact that you can pre-empt what science will discover in the future indicates a fair quantity of delusion - especially since the more advancements made in physics and organic chemistry seems to put such a challenge further and further into the future - in darwins time it was thought that cells were just globs of matter - now it is realised that cells contain approximately 200 trillion molecules executing thousands of co-ordinated reactions with precise timing and function - every second each cell in our body is producing about 2000 proteins

Accepting post dated cheques is as foolish in commerce as it is in science

And we will do it. You and I may be dead, but there are only two possible endpoints of the scientific pursuit of lab abiogenesis:

1) We succeed, and what we already know is confirmed, or

2) We fail and in the process discover that there is indeed a heretofore unknown "essence" that is revealed by 22nd century quantum tunnelling organic life energy sensors. Or whatever. Or god shows up to finally put a stop to it all. Treading on his turf, as it were.

or there is

3) we just keep on barking up the same catless tree for as long as there is funding for it

But you can clearly understand why the "get on your knees and praise the creator of life" approach is not very interesting and not very educational given the mind-numbing subservience to a cultural delusion that it is.

Once again you rely on some grossly inaccurate idea of scientists who advocate ID- I can opnly assume that you have never read any of their material - at the very least they think the idea that there is an intelligence behind the formation of life very interesting and it certainly doesn't inhibit their scientific curiousity - on the contrary it enlivens them

So LG, what in the hell are you actually arguing here? You seem to be arguing that the idea of abiogenesis as proven fact is nonsense. We agree with you. Are you arguing that the opposite - life came from god, or some other "thing" - is fact? You seem to be.

My stance is that creation requires intelligence - whether you are talking about cells or crayon pictures

If you're not, then we are in agreement. The origin of life is still unknown. The only fruitful avenue of research for those interested in it is to follow the clues of organic and molecular chemistry. Surely you agree whit this?

What exactly the clues of organic chemistry indicate is the issue in contention

 

[lightgigantic]

I haven´t read your posts before LightG - but I like that you use famous people´s quotes - it is a sure sign, that you are running out of valid arguments yourself !!!

Have a nice day

I take it you are one of those confident types that launches into discussions something like "I am no brain surgeon, but ...."

 

[lightgigantic]

Soul music might have soul - any other souls are only in the fantasy of religious persons !!!!!!

Not sure what your point is

.... do you actually have premises for you ideas or are you more into making bold statements to the world ...