Souls/spirits do not exist - hence religions are irrelevant.

[Cris]

Spookz,

So for your statement to make sense you should define precisely what you mean by “soul”. Until then you can’t say anything about its existence and by default anything undefined can’t and therefore does not exist.

amazing! i am at a loss for words

Maybe that went too far. But try, I’m out on a limb here and am not sure where this will lead.

I’m trying to argue the case against the issue that you can’t prove a negative, which I have stated elsewhere can’t be done, and I suspect it can’t. In a real sense I’m arguing against myself.

If you have no evidence that something exists then you can’t describe it or define it. Or perhaps more appropriately the chances of you accurately defining something for which there is no evidence is infinitesimally small.

 

[spookz]

chris - your first post

There has been much discussion about the existence of gods and proof/evidence of such; however, such arguments are irrelevant if souls do not exist.

why? is it because you either have to buy the whole story or you dont? perhaps god did create us. we were right about that. however we were wrong about the soul. it was proved that it does not exist. how does that prove that god does not exist? we could switch scenarios where souls exist and god doesnt. what are your definitions of these two concepts? where do you get them from? the bible? is that why you assume the two are mutually inclusive?

So rather than try to prove or disprove the existence of a single super entity shouldn’t it be easier to prove the existence of at least one human soul since these are in the billions, and presumably much closer to home, i.e. we are all really souls.

how do you make the distinction that one is harder than the other? you seriously want something that is asserted to be immaterial to stand up be measured?

My understanding is that there is no such thing as a soul since all cognitive functions, memories, emotions, feelings, thoughts, are all stored and generated by the brain. This I believe is confirmed through thousands of clinical studies where patients have suffered some degree of brain damage and the studies show missing function depending on the damage.

If a soul exists and can carry awareness from one state of existence to another then it must be able to hold memories at least. If a brain is damaged and all memory is destroyed then if a soul is present why can’t the person remember anything? This implies that the memory is in the brain and is entirely physical.

what is it you claim to know about the attributes of a soul? you find it to be a mirror of a human? with vision and memories? can it also speak? arent you merely falling into an anthropomorphic trap by doing this?

We also know that damage to the brain can also result in impairments to abilities to think, to reason, to experience emotions, etc. The same argument applies to these properties as to memory. If these are all physical then what is a soul if it doesn’t have these?

why not speculate? how do plants live? single celled stuff? perhaps there are modes of life that we cant comprehend yet. to assume that we are at the pinnacle of what life can offer is short sighted

For a soul to have any type of awareness or identity then it must be able to retain some if not all of the properties that we know are controlled by the brain.

says who? why do you make assumptions and then hold them out to be factual and beyond dispute? why must it retain properties?

So why is a person seriously impaired by brain damage if a soul exists? The obvious answer is that there are no such things as souls.

if the interface is damaged why do you expect things to work as if nothing has happened? for instance a nerve is damaged, blindness results. you expect that if there is a soul, there will be no resulting blindness? how do we keep on seeing?

Does everyone agree?

no. you are merely making assumptions of your own

 

[Cris]

Spookz,

and by default anything undefined can’t and therefore does not exist.

so undefined means nonexistence.

Does it? What does it mean to say that something is undefined?

This is not the same as being unable to define something that exists.

How can you say anything about the existence of something that is undefined?

Or in a more practical sense what would you look for to say that something undefined exists. It is a nonsense.

 

[dixxyman]

I think of it this way. just because in the past the periodic table had some holes in it didn't mean that the elements didn't exist.

 

[Cris]

Spookz,

.. it was proved that it does not exist. how does that prove that god does not exist?

Non existence of souls doesn’t prove that a god does not exist, and I don’t think I stated that but without a soul who would care whether he existed or not? Most of religion is about what you must do in this life to achieve some form of paradise in the next life. Without a soul then a next life is not possible and hence most of religion is irrelevant.

how do you make the distinction that one is harder than the other? you seriously want something that is asserted to be immaterial to stand up be measured?

Nope. But if it is possible then detecting one out of billions of samples should be more likely than just one out of one, right?

what is it you claim to know about the attributes of a soul? you find it to be a mirror of a human? with vision and memories? can it also speak? arent you merely falling into an anthropomorphic trap by doing this?

The conventional view is that a soul controls the mind, emotions, etc. How do you want to define soul?

why not speculate? how do plants live? single celled stuff? perhaps there are modes of life that we cant comprehend yet. to assume that we are at the pinnacle of what life can offer is short sighted

I assume human life is at the beginning of evolution, and not the end. What was your point?

For a soul to have any type of awareness or identity then it must be able to retain some if not all of the properties that we know are controlled by the brain.

says who? why do you make assumptions and then hold them out to be factual and beyond dispute? why must it retain properties?

If there is no link between physical life and a spiritual life then why would I care if I have a soul or not?

if the interface is damaged why do you expect things to work as if nothing has happened? for instance a nerve is damaged, blindness results. you expect that if there is a soul, there will be no resulting blindness? how do we keep on seeing?

So your point is?

Does everyone agree?

no. you are merely making assumptions of your own

Well yes of course I am that is why I asked for agreement and/or debate.

 

[Cris]

Dixxie,

just because in the past the periodic table had some holes in it didn't mean that the elements didn't exist.

But that example doesn’t work since as soon as we could see how the periodic table worked then the missing elements were clearly defined and it was that revelation that enabled us to go in search of those missing elements.

In other words we had evidence that those missing elements should and could exist. It was because we could define them that we eventually found them.

But keep trying.

 

[spookz]

Non existence of souls doesn’t prove that a god does not exist, and I don’t think I stated that but without a soul who would care whether he existed or not? Most of religion is about what you must do in this life to achieve some form of paradise in the next life. Without a soul then a next life is not possible and hence most of religion is irrelevant.

you stated that god would be irrelevant if souls did not exist. i take that to mean than denying one would also deny the other. religion to me is really irrelevant here because i do not think that biblical stories are required to have concept of a soul
i get an idea of a soul by merely living. i sense that i am not merely this body. rather i am conscious of being an inhabitant of it

Nope. But if it is possible then detecting one out of billions of samples should be more likely than just one out of one, right?

well yeah but that really isnt saying anything. having a million souls will not make measuring any easier if it is still immaterial.

The conventional view is that a soul controls the mind, emotions, etc. How do you want to define soul?

ha! a parasite in a symbiotic relationship

I assume human life is at the beginning of evolution, and not the end. What was your point?

huh? you were asking what a soul is if it doesnt have the same attributes as a human. i replied "why not speculate". consider the various forms of life as starting point and go from there. try to avoid anthropomorphizing as it could be possible that a soul could be a very alien concept. perhaps its nothing as cosy as the bible says

If there is no link between physical life and a spiritual life then why would I care if I have a soul or not?

you tend to view the soul as a mirror image of a human. for instance you say it has to have "identity", i am holding out the possibilty that it is may not be that easily explained.

So your point is?



here is what you said....
"So why is a person seriously impaired by brain damage if a soul exists? The obvious answer is that there are no such things as souls."

i am asking you a question. why do you think we have to keep on functioning as if nothing has happened? i reiterate: if the interface (brain) is damaged, by what means does the soul function thru? a backup brain? how hard is this to understand?

Well yes of course I am that is why I asked for agreement and/or debate.

it appears as if you are making statements of facts rather than assumptions but of course i could be wrong

 

[dixxyman]

Yes but should and could are not the words that demand a certitude of existence. I'll give you up to that point. Just because something could exist does not ensure its coming existence. Suppose the world had ended before U235 had given off Ba 141?
or any other isotope for that matter?
There is act and potential there. If the potential is not there...nada

 

[spookz]

Originally posted by Cris
In other words we had evidence that those missing elements should and could exist. It was because we could define them that we eventually found them.

But keep trying.

what kind of evidence? do you mean this kind.......

There is as yet no direct evidence for the existence of the tau neutrino. This means that a tau neutrino-induced charged-current interaction has never been explicitely observed through the identification of the produced tau lepton. On the other hand, a wealth of indirect evidence exists. Most of it comes from data suggesting the tau has a neutral, spin 1/2, weak isospin partner:

would you settle for the same kind of evidence for a soul or do you hold the soul to more exacting standards?

ps: keep trying? getting kinda fatuous and smug here are we?

 

[dixxyman]

The fact that my attempt at examples is not satisfying to you in no way invalidates the principles upon which they are based. I never thought of myself as fatuous otherwise I wouldn't be on this board. No ad hom here ok?

 

[Cris]

Spookz,

ps: keep trying? getting kinda fatuous and smug here are we?

No, I meant I’m open to other potential examples. No disrespect to Dixxie was intended.

what kind of evidence? do you mean this kind.......

There is as yet no direct evidence for the existence of the tau neutrino. This means that a tau neutrino-induced charged-current interaction has never been explicitely observed through the identification of the produced tau lepton. On the other hand, a wealth of indirect evidence exists. Most of it comes from data suggesting the tau has a neutral, spin 1/2, weak isospin partner:

would you settle for the same kind of evidence for a soul or do you hold the soul to more exacting standards?

The tau neutrino is well defined. Can you define a soul with the same exacting precision of the tau neutrino? We can’t even agree on what the word means let alone come anywhere near to a precise definition.

You suggested using speculation; this indicates that the concept of a soul is no more than imaginative conjecture. It is something that is undefined and as I asserted earlier something undefined cannot exit.

 

[Cris]

Dixxyman,

Yes but should and could are not the words that demand a certitude of existence. I'll give you up to that point. Just because something could exist does not ensure its coming existence. Suppose the world had ended before U235 had given off Ba 141?
or any other isotope for that matter?

There is act and potential there. If the potential is not there...nada

So here we are talking about things that are defined but can’t be proven to exist.

My assertion was that something undefined cannot exist. The two concepts are quite different.

 

[Cris]

Dixxyman,

The fact that my attempt at examples is not satisfying to you in no way invalidates the principles upon which they are based. I never thought of myself as fatuous otherwise I wouldn't be on this board. No ad hom here ok?

I really do mean I'd like to see more examples. I assume I am wrong but I can't think of an appropriate example to disprove my assertion.

 

[spookz]

As physics is presently constituted, an attribute called consciousness will not appear in the mathematical formalisms. The reason, of course, is that consciousness has not been introduced as a property possessed by a quantum system such as an electron. Let me explain this with an analogy. The concept of charge was introduced because bodies seemed to exert forces on one another in certain circumstances. Once charge was formally recognized and defined, the whole theory of electromagnetism followed. For consciousness to enter physics, a similar procedure might have to be used. But in order do this physicists would have to admit that consciousness exists and can be assigned attributes. Quantum theory does seem to indicate that consciousness is an attribute of a quantum system. Very simply quantum theory is described by two equations. One is a deterministic wave equation and the second is a probability equation. Amazingly, the two equations are connected only by an act of observation. Observation implies consciousness, at least to some physicists. So there is an indication that consciousness will have to be treated in physics. (norman friedman)

 

[dixxyman]

let me ask a question since i am not schooled in quantum physics. your use of the word observed implies visualization? how about a computer recording instead?. After all an observation can be 2 dimensional; that which is observed and that which does the observing. You can substitute any non-human implying word(s) and get the same result as in you above construct.
Why do we have to have a definition of something in order to prove or justify its existence. Seems redundant.
Decartes missed the chance of a lifetime when he stopped at"Cogito ergo sum". Had he taken the next step to:"I am therefore I think" he would have been the Thomistic's poster boy.
Rather he is a jumping off point of self congratulation before the "deserves" as it were.
DMan

 

[Cris]

Spookz,

you stated that god would be irrelevant if souls did not exist.

Well technically the object was religion not a god specifically.

i take that to mean than denying one would also deny the other.

No that doesn’t necessarily follow, some type of god might still exist, just not the one usually considered by Christians etc.

religion to me is really irrelevant here because i do not think that biblical stories are required to have concept of a soul

OK.

i get an idea of a soul by merely living.

OK, it’s called imagination.

i sense that i am not merely this body.

Which sense do you use, sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste?

rather i am conscious of being an inhabitant of it

More imagination and dreaming.

having a million souls will not make measuring any easier if it is still immaterial.

But I did say only if such things are detectable.

ha! a parasite in a symbiotic relationship

But you just said that you are not merely your body. Do you think of yourself as a parasite then?

you tend to view the soul as a mirror image of a human.

What do you mean by mirror image? You have implied above that you inhabit a body. Who is the human, you or your body?

for instance you say it has to have "identity", i am holding out the possibilty that it is may not be that easily explained.

So with that logic you would claim that the soul that is you would have no way to know that you are you. What value then is such a vehicle?

it appears as if you are making statements of facts rather than assumptions but of course i could be wrong

I try to make provocative assertions near the limits but supported by at least some logic. I dare others to tear me apart and hence the fun. By probing the boundaries I discover what arguments have merit and which ones fail.

 

[Cris]

Dman,

Why do we have to have a definition of something in order to prove or justify its existence.

I'm not sure that the existence of anything needs to be justified. But how do you know what you are trying to prove if you don't at first start with a definition? How would you know when you have reached a proof?

 

[dixxyman]

All I can further offer before becoming sophomoric are the following;


YORICK (?Tristan Shandy)



There are my dear Yorick
more wonders in the universe
than you or I dream of in our
philosophies.
But to accept much of which
people accept based on the "and proofs"
upon which to base this
acceptability is called gullibility.

HAMLET
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


Otherwise I risk becoming sophomoric: a useless exercise in lexicon.

Who defines what is to be defined before it is in existence. Sounds like God to me.
DMan

 

[Cris]

Dman,

Who defines what is to be defined before it is in existence. Sounds like God to me.

Or souls.

 

[UltiTruth]

Originally posted by Cris
My assertion was that something undefined cannot exist.

So the neutrino did not exist 5000 years back just because it was not defined, and sprang to its existence once it was defined by the wise men?

Cris, I would also like to know if you think some other senses other that the five we have could exist at all, and if they do, what they might be like. And if they do, are they defined and do they exist?
And do you know everything that exists? Exists in what dimensions of time & space?