Souls/spirits do not exist - hence religions are irrelevant.
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
- Status
Ulti,
Can you show a supernatural extra sense?
No, these aren’t extra senses. You are still only talking about sound detection (albeit ultrasonic), and touch (heat detection), many of our nerve cells are sensitive to heat. You are describing an extension to existing senses not extra senses.
Can you show a supernatural extra sense?
That is a non sequitur. We can perceive ultrasonics; we have built equipment to detect it, that’s one reason why we know it exists. There is no connection to an imaginary alleged supernatural something
That other senses might exist is still in your imagination. It says nothing about whether they exist, do not exist, or are even possible. Without some evidence we cannot say anything one way or the other.
I totally agree. The difference comes when people claim imaginative ideas as truth – it is that that I find unacceptable.
I agree that it makes no sense to say anything about the existence of a fantasy object. Without a definition the word is simply meaningless. I assume you cannot deny the existence of a blaityam either, right?
But that means you cannot makes claims for things you think might exist. We are all free to speculate and imagine as long as we realize we are speculating and imagining.
No I don’t. Where did I say that? We don’t know what might exist elsewhere.
Until you define ‘soul’ and its operational parameters we wouldn’t know where to start.
We are just as able as earlier cavemen, why weren’t they able to build a modern computer. Perhaps you just have to be patient a little longer. Do you want to deny that it will be impossible for us to replicate a brain in the future? Modern science has only been around for decades, in that sense science is barely at its beginning.
Answered above. Define what it is first.
No, that is not true. There is no evidence or precedence for anything that can be termed as soul. On that basis the likelyhood is extremely low that a soul might exist. Or IOW the lilelyhood of non-existence is extremely high compared to existence.
Is that a threat or a promise?
chris and raith
Penrose continues, "I would maintain that there is yet no physical, biological, or computational theory that comes very close to explaining our consciousness and consequent intelligence; but that should not deter us from striving to search for one"
One, thus far all of the answers we have found have been in the physicalist arena. (raith)
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. (chris)
elaborate. what answers have been found relating to the problem of consciousness? put forward your own theory. explain how electricity gives rise to emotions and feelings.
second, you guys claim that you accept that different theories of consciousness are possible, yet when faced with fairly conventional but alternative explanations of consciousness, you react with accusations of "dreaming, fantasy, tribbles, etc". i am surprised that seasoned debaters such as yourselves have to resort to that. dont you think there is difference b/w conjuring up a troll in the himalayas and self reflection ("damn! i look like shit")
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.(chris)
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? thru what mechanism?
*it seems as your entire premise that "souls/spirits do not exist" relies on the above quote made by you
i leave you now with a insult by eccles
"Neuroscientist Sir John Eccles dismisses the materialistic standpoint as a "superstition", "
Penrose continues, "I would maintain that there is yet no physical, biological, or computational theory that comes very close to explaining our consciousness and consequent intelligence; but that should not deter us from striving to search for one"
One, thus far all of the answers we have found have been in the physicalist arena. (raith)
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. (chris)
elaborate. what answers have been found relating to the problem of consciousness? put forward your own theory. explain how electricity gives rise to emotions and feelings.
second, you guys claim that you accept that different theories of consciousness are possible, yet when faced with fairly conventional but alternative explanations of consciousness, you react with accusations of "dreaming, fantasy, tribbles, etc". i am surprised that seasoned debaters such as yourselves have to resort to that. dont you think there is difference b/w conjuring up a troll in the himalayas and self reflection ("damn! i look like shit")
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.(chris)
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? thru what mechanism?
*it seems as your entire premise that "souls/spirits do not exist" relies on the above quote made by you
i leave you now with a insult by eccles
"Neuroscientist Sir John Eccles dismisses the materialistic standpoint as a "superstition", "
chris
We are just as able as earlier cavemen, why weren’t they able to build a modern computer. Perhaps you just have to be patient a little longer. Do you want to deny that it will be impossible for us to replicate a brain in the future? Modern science has only been around for decades, in that sense science is barely at its beginning.
an excellent example of "promissory materialism". this is hardly any different from me saying that "someday i will nail that pesky soul down"
We are just as able as earlier cavemen, why weren’t they able to build a modern computer. Perhaps you just have to be patient a little longer. Do you want to deny that it will be impossible for us to replicate a brain in the future? Modern science has only been around for decades, in that sense science is barely at its beginning.
an excellent example of "promissory materialism". this is hardly any different from me saying that "someday i will nail that pesky soul down"
Spokz,
Everything in science has shown explanations for many things and all have been physical. The precedent for explaining unexplained phenomena has to date been 100% physical. Why, when the brain is still not fully understood would anyone still waste time looking for imaginary explanations?
I think you are making my point for me. If we are controlled by our brain then damaging the brain results in dysfunction. If we are controlled by a soul and not the brain then damaging the brain should have little impact. But that is not what we observe. There appears a direct correlation between the brain and all cognitive, memory, emotional, and thinking functions. This implies there is no purpose or role for a soul. Why then offer the idea of something that appears to have no value or purpose. Isn’t it more likely that this imaginary entity was proposed in past times when the role of the brain was not understood or suspected? In ancient Egyptian times the emotions and thoughts were considered the role of the heart. Consequently in mummification the brain was routinely destroyed and discarded.
Then what is the purpose of the brain? Why spend time searching for something imaginary instead of studying that which is by far the most likely organ to hold the mind, and which we have yet to fully understand?
Everything in science has shown explanations for many things and all have been physical. The precedent for explaining unexplained phenomena has to date been 100% physical. Why, when the brain is still not fully understood would anyone still waste time looking for imaginary explanations?
Scientists are still researching. Much has not been explained. Not having an explanation does not by default result in proof for something immaterial.
The brain.
That’s how the brain works. Can you show any evidence for any other mechanism?
I don’t think that I have accepted that anything other than a physical explanation is possible. There is nothing that indicates that the supernatural has any veracity.
What conventional but alternative explanations? Are you suggesting that truth is determined by a majority vote?
Show proof of a phenomenon caused by an alleged supernatural influence. I think you will have difficulty and will likely fail, now compare that effort with the countless instances where science has offered and proved physical proof of past unexplained phenomena. Why is supporting a vast knowledge base and enormous precedence for finding solutions considered trolling when proposing unproven fantasies is somehow of value?
You’ve stated this before and I have been unable to determine what you are asking. So I’ll take a guess.
I think you are making my point for me. If we are controlled by our brain then damaging the brain results in dysfunction. If we are controlled by a soul and not the brain then damaging the brain should have little impact. But that is not what we observe. There appears a direct correlation between the brain and all cognitive, memory, emotional, and thinking functions. This implies there is no purpose or role for a soul. Why then offer the idea of something that appears to have no value or purpose. Isn’t it more likely that this imaginary entity was proposed in past times when the role of the brain was not understood or suspected? In ancient Egyptian times the emotions and thoughts were considered the role of the heart. Consequently in mummification the brain was routinely destroyed and discarded.
And if you study the extensive post by Boris you will see that this is but one premise among many.
So he proved the existence of something immaterial then, right? Sorry, but I couldn’t find any such proofs. He was a stated dualist who even with his superb work was unable to prove his still unsupported beliefs.
Spookz,
So I strongly disagree. The two claims are incomparable.
Except that science has an immense proven track record of solving problems of immense physical complexity, e.g. DNA, numerous diseases, relativity, astrophysics, etc. But there is a zero track record for anyone finding anything immaterial.
So I strongly disagree. The two claims are incomparable.
Memories, emotions, and sensations can all be stimulated by both drugs and direct electrical stimulation of the brain. Further the conscious experience elicited depends upon and can be duplicated by affecting particular regions on the brain. People with brain damage and various physical brain disorders exhibit various changes in personality and emotional experience.
To clarify; we are not making accusations but equating these things with the concept of the soul. These ideas are alike in that there is no supporting evidence. The primary difference is that ideas such as trolls and dragons are generally admitted to be purely imaginative or symbolic while many, if not most, people assert that souls are real despite the lack of evidence or even a clear definition of what a soul is.
Personally, I believe that souls, god, and the supernatural in general are simply inaccurate explanations for real experiences. There is a holistic or unitary quality to conscious experience that remains largely ineffable to typical scientific reductionism. It is this quality, missing from most physicalist philosophies yet clearly experienced, which the religious decry. However, their grasping for some mystical quantity is unfounded.
More occurs than simple distortions or disruptions between the mind and the body, experience, emotion, personality, all of these things can be changed by physical affects. If consciousness originates from a non-physical construct how is it that mechanistic alterations of the brain alter consciousness?
~Raithere
raith
Memories, emotions, and sensations can all be stimulated by both drugs and direct electrical stimulation of the brain. Further the conscious experience elicited depends upon and can be duplicated by affecting particular regions on the brain. People with brain damage and various physical brain disorders exhibit various changes in personality and emotional experience.
that is not in dispute. giving verbal reports of internal states is easy. a machine can do a self check and produce a log file. the harder question is why this electrical stimulation should give rise to a subjective experience. so far in neuroscience there are many theories, none of which have provided any conclusive evidence
To clarify; we are not making accusations but equating these things with the concept of the soul. These ideas are alike in that there is no supporting evidence. The primary difference is that ideas such as trolls and dragons are generally admitted to be purely imaginative or symbolic while many, if not most, people assert that souls are real despite the lack of evidence or even a clear definition of what a soul is.
i am doing my best to reconcile my "theory of the moment" (hammeroff) with science. again, "most people" are not involved in this discussion. i am not asserting anything to the point of being dogmatic and it is unfortunate if i am giving that impression. i am also aware that the tack i am taking is not quite what was intended in this thread because it seems that you guys insist on using mythological definitions for what should be the more appropiate issue, namely, establishing and identifying the nature of consciousness.
Personally, I believe that souls, god, and the supernatural in general are simply inaccurate explanations for real experiences. There is a holistic or unitary quality to conscious experience that remains largely ineffable to typical scientific reductionism. It is this quality, missing from most physicalist philosophies yet clearly experienced, which the religious decry. However, their grasping for some mystical quantity is unfounded.
again, to hell with the religious. what you term as "mystical" could very well turn out to be entirely material. it appears mystical only because we are ignorant. but yes, i agree
More occurs than simple distortions or disruptions between the mind and the body, experience, emotion, personality, all of these things can be changed by physical affects. If consciousness originates from a non-physical construct how is it that mechanistic alterations of the brain alter consciousness?
you assume it is non physical. if the ghost can function without the machine, why bother using it? lets try a simple analogy....a human using a computer as an interface to his environment....the monitor transmits in b/w due to tweak... do you expect that to impact the human or should he still see in color?
edit: included subject line
Memories, emotions, and sensations can all be stimulated by both drugs and direct electrical stimulation of the brain. Further the conscious experience elicited depends upon and can be duplicated by affecting particular regions on the brain. People with brain damage and various physical brain disorders exhibit various changes in personality and emotional experience.
that is not in dispute. giving verbal reports of internal states is easy. a machine can do a self check and produce a log file. the harder question is why this electrical stimulation should give rise to a subjective experience. so far in neuroscience there are many theories, none of which have provided any conclusive evidence
To clarify; we are not making accusations but equating these things with the concept of the soul. These ideas are alike in that there is no supporting evidence. The primary difference is that ideas such as trolls and dragons are generally admitted to be purely imaginative or symbolic while many, if not most, people assert that souls are real despite the lack of evidence or even a clear definition of what a soul is.
i am doing my best to reconcile my "theory of the moment" (hammeroff) with science. again, "most people" are not involved in this discussion. i am not asserting anything to the point of being dogmatic and it is unfortunate if i am giving that impression. i am also aware that the tack i am taking is not quite what was intended in this thread because it seems that you guys insist on using mythological definitions for what should be the more appropiate issue, namely, establishing and identifying the nature of consciousness.
Personally, I believe that souls, god, and the supernatural in general are simply inaccurate explanations for real experiences. There is a holistic or unitary quality to conscious experience that remains largely ineffable to typical scientific reductionism. It is this quality, missing from most physicalist philosophies yet clearly experienced, which the religious decry. However, their grasping for some mystical quantity is unfounded.
again, to hell with the religious. what you term as "mystical" could very well turn out to be entirely material. it appears mystical only because we are ignorant. but yes, i agree
More occurs than simple distortions or disruptions between the mind and the body, experience, emotion, personality, all of these things can be changed by physical affects. If consciousness originates from a non-physical construct how is it that mechanistic alterations of the brain alter consciousness?
you assume it is non physical. if the ghost can function without the machine, why bother using it? lets try a simple analogy....a human using a computer as an interface to his environment....the monitor transmits in b/w due to tweak... do you expect that to impact the human or should he still see in color?
edit: included subject line
Last edited:
The Heisenberg-Bohr tranquilizing philosophy--or religion? --is so delicately contrived that, for the time being, it provides a gentle pillow for the true believer from which he cannot very easily be aroused. So let him lie there. (einstein)
edit: i am mocking myself
edit: i am mocking myself
Last edited:
We could induce Love, Happiness, Fear, Sadness and all other emotions thro drugs and EM stimulations. U short circuit the retina signals & feed in the signals (same format to that of what retina sends to brain) received from a camera on Mars surface. better if u stimulate sound, smell, skin signals. The guy would reasonably believe he is on Mars physically if he sits still. Even it is possible to have a robot on Mars with all the 'interfaces' like camera, microphone, heat - smell??- skin sensors and even could be made to move as desired by the 'control signals' recieved from the brain of our almost short-circuited guy. In this case he will never believe he is on earth. He will see, hear ?? , smell, feel the dry, hot atmosphere, hardness of the Mars soil.
It is a speculation.. But for the poor Joe (our victim) Mars is real rather than Earth. His brain fools him besides getting itself fooled by the sensory signals. It could be fooled to have emotions by drugs. Brain doesnot know where it is. ..On Earth or On Mars.. (if u put the brain of an urang-utang inside the head of the human-like robot as a dummy brain, Joe would believe, he has all reason(!) to do so, that shit is his own brain. but U atheists rely on this material brain to show u Soul/God..! Go ahead with ur materialistic matrix reality..!
(Possibility & Probablity need not be the same.. Possibility of God is there.. estimating the probability depends on our knowledge if we have enough..!)
edit : whatever manipulation / surgical operation on Joe's brain we do on earth will freeze the robot on Mars and Joe would later think he got a mysterious black-out.. u see, God can fool all of us without appearing before us.. soul is the real Joe/brain on earth.. his observable (to Joe) body is on Mars.. Materialism leads Joe to.. ? MATERIALISTIC MARS REALITY. We sitting besides Joe on earth decide what Joe should do/think/believe on Mars by feeding manipulating the signals then and there without Joe's (Mars Robot as well as Earth Joe) knowledge.. !
It is a speculation.. But for the poor Joe (our victim) Mars is real rather than Earth. His brain fools him besides getting itself fooled by the sensory signals. It could be fooled to have emotions by drugs. Brain doesnot know where it is. ..On Earth or On Mars.. (if u put the brain of an urang-utang inside the head of the human-like robot as a dummy brain, Joe would believe, he has all reason(!) to do so, that shit is his own brain. but U atheists rely on this material brain to show u Soul/God..! Go ahead with ur materialistic matrix reality..!
(Possibility & Probablity need not be the same.. Possibility of God is there.. estimating the probability depends on our knowledge if we have enough..!)
edit : whatever manipulation / surgical operation on Joe's brain we do on earth will freeze the robot on Mars and Joe would later think he got a mysterious black-out.. u see, God can fool all of us without appearing before us.. soul is the real Joe/brain on earth.. his observable (to Joe) body is on Mars.. Materialism leads Joe to.. ? MATERIALISTIC MARS REALITY. We sitting besides Joe on earth decide what Joe should do/think/believe on Mars by feeding manipulating the signals then and there without Joe's (Mars Robot as well as Earth Joe) knowledge.. !
Last edited:
Everno,
However, possibility tells us what numbers can occur, in this case it is the numbers between 2 and 12 and only those numbers are possible. You can throw the dice as often as you like but you will never be able to throw a 13.
Same goes for souls.
This is true. Take two dice. Given the various combinations of numbers on two dice we can mathematically calculate the probability of which number will occur on each throw of the dice, e.g. 7 is more probable than 12 or 2.
However, possibility tells us what numbers can occur, in this case it is the numbers between 2 and 12 and only those numbers are possible. You can throw the dice as often as you like but you will never be able to throw a 13.
To say that a God is possible you must be able to show that such an entity is one out of the entire set of possibilities. Otherwise you might well be claiming you can throw a 13.
Probability is irrelevant until you can show a possibility. As yet no one can show that a god is possible.
Same goes for souls.
chris
Then what is the purpose of the brain? Why spend time searching for something imaginary instead of studying that which is by far the most likely organ to hold the mind, and which we have yet to fully understand?
humans are capable of mutitasking. also just because a particular field of study is not fully understood does not preclude other lines of study (competing or complementary). for instance, chalmers, a prominent researcher in consciousness studies was offered a post from oxford university to assume its prestigious wilde professorship of mental philosophy. i imagine then there are others that think differently from you and do not seek to stifle research for whatever reason.
Everything in science has shown explanations for many things and all have been physical. The precedent for explaining unexplained phenomena has to date been 100% physical. Why, when the brain is still not fully understood would anyone still waste time looking for imaginary explanations?
you are repeating yourself
Scientists are still researching. Much has not been explained. Not having an explanation does not by default result in proof for something immaterial.
sure. too bad you cant be as magnanimous toward those who explore avenues that you do not approve of. show me where i implied that it defaults towards immateriality. secondly, what is immateriality? how can there be such a thing? why hold on to outdated concepts? it is unfortunate that i did not lay out some ground rules to this discussion
The brain.
That’s how the brain works. Can you show any evidence for any other mechanism?
this is nothing but an article of faith. why dont you show your evidence for a neural correlate of consciousness since it is you who has the stronger opinion on how the brain works.
I don’t think that I have accepted that anything other than a physical explanation is possible. There is nothing that indicates that the supernatural has any veracity.
yes you have not. apologies
What conventional but alternative explanations? Are you suggesting that truth is determined by a majority vote?
knock yourself out
where do i suggest majority implies truth? on the contrary it is the status quo that asserts that the prevailing opinion be held as infallible. all dissenting opinion will be dissed (tribbles, dinosaurs, fantasies, dreams)
Show proof of a phenomenon caused by an alleged supernatural influence. I think you will have difficulty and will likely fail, now compare that effort with the countless instances where science has offered and proved physical proof of past unexplained phenomena. Why is supporting a vast knowledge base and enormous precedence for finding solutions considered trolling when proposing unproven fantasies is somehow of value?
i support the scientific method. however i am not dogmatic and do not play politics
You’ve stated this before and I have been unable to determine what you are asking. So I’ll take a guess.
I think you are making my point for me. If we are controlled by our brain then damaging the brain results in dysfunction. If we are controlled by a soul and not the brain then damaging the brain should have little impact. But that is not what we observe. There appears a direct correlation between the brain and all cognitive, memory, emotional, and thinking functions. This implies there is no purpose or role for a soul. Why then offer the idea of something that appears to have no value or purpose. Isn’t it more likely that this imaginary entity was proposed in past times when the role of the brain was not understood or suspected? In ancient Egyptian times the emotions and thoughts were considered the role of the heart. Consequently in mummification the brain was routinely destroyed and discarded.
you merely restating your premise. a question is not a statement that makes a point
And if you study the extensive post by Boris you will see that this is but one premise among many.
the post is mostly bio 101. i will take a crack at it
So he proved the existence of something immaterial then, right? Sorry, but I couldn’t find any such proofs. He was a stated dualist who even with his superb work was unable to prove his still unsupported beliefs.
i never intended his quote to prove anything other that what it clearly states, an opinion! eccles goes further that i would dare but yet i do not see him offering his opinion as proof
edit: included subject line
Then what is the purpose of the brain? Why spend time searching for something imaginary instead of studying that which is by far the most likely organ to hold the mind, and which we have yet to fully understand?
humans are capable of mutitasking. also just because a particular field of study is not fully understood does not preclude other lines of study (competing or complementary). for instance, chalmers, a prominent researcher in consciousness studies was offered a post from oxford university to assume its prestigious wilde professorship of mental philosophy. i imagine then there are others that think differently from you and do not seek to stifle research for whatever reason.
Everything in science has shown explanations for many things and all have been physical. The precedent for explaining unexplained phenomena has to date been 100% physical. Why, when the brain is still not fully understood would anyone still waste time looking for imaginary explanations?
you are repeating yourself
Scientists are still researching. Much has not been explained. Not having an explanation does not by default result in proof for something immaterial.
sure. too bad you cant be as magnanimous toward those who explore avenues that you do not approve of. show me where i implied that it defaults towards immateriality. secondly, what is immateriality? how can there be such a thing? why hold on to outdated concepts? it is unfortunate that i did not lay out some ground rules to this discussion
The brain.
That’s how the brain works. Can you show any evidence for any other mechanism?
this is nothing but an article of faith. why dont you show your evidence for a neural correlate of consciousness since it is you who has the stronger opinion on how the brain works.
I don’t think that I have accepted that anything other than a physical explanation is possible. There is nothing that indicates that the supernatural has any veracity.
yes you have not. apologies
What conventional but alternative explanations? Are you suggesting that truth is determined by a majority vote?
knock yourself out
where do i suggest majority implies truth? on the contrary it is the status quo that asserts that the prevailing opinion be held as infallible. all dissenting opinion will be dissed (tribbles, dinosaurs, fantasies, dreams)
Show proof of a phenomenon caused by an alleged supernatural influence. I think you will have difficulty and will likely fail, now compare that effort with the countless instances where science has offered and proved physical proof of past unexplained phenomena. Why is supporting a vast knowledge base and enormous precedence for finding solutions considered trolling when proposing unproven fantasies is somehow of value?
i support the scientific method. however i am not dogmatic and do not play politics
You’ve stated this before and I have been unable to determine what you are asking. So I’ll take a guess.
I think you are making my point for me. If we are controlled by our brain then damaging the brain results in dysfunction. If we are controlled by a soul and not the brain then damaging the brain should have little impact. But that is not what we observe. There appears a direct correlation between the brain and all cognitive, memory, emotional, and thinking functions. This implies there is no purpose or role for a soul. Why then offer the idea of something that appears to have no value or purpose. Isn’t it more likely that this imaginary entity was proposed in past times when the role of the brain was not understood or suspected? In ancient Egyptian times the emotions and thoughts were considered the role of the heart. Consequently in mummification the brain was routinely destroyed and discarded.
you merely restating your premise. a question is not a statement that makes a point
And if you study the extensive post by Boris you will see that this is but one premise among many.
the post is mostly bio 101. i will take a crack at it
So he proved the existence of something immaterial then, right? Sorry, but I couldn’t find any such proofs. He was a stated dualist who even with his superb work was unable to prove his still unsupported beliefs.
i never intended his quote to prove anything other that what it clearly states, an opinion! eccles goes further that i would dare but yet i do not see him offering his opinion as proof
edit: included subject line
Last edited:
Re: Standard definitions--why trust them in this case?
Originally posted by tiassa
What "could" a soul be? Well, the mind-uploaders might have an answer for that question someday. Perhaps it's a strictly bio-electrical phenomenon. I still hold to my conclusion that life is not a chance occurrence but a statistical necessity in the Universe, so it's not as if a soul must be mystical.
If you trust the standard definition of the soul, then the argument freezes there. We doubt everything else about Christianity, for instance ... why not doubt the definition of the soul? Without hostility, sarcasm, or otherwise--for it might be possible to interpret it that way--the result of trusting the Christian definition of the soul in order to argue about it seems more a tool to beat down an idea rather than to explore its possibilities.
Do you trust an ancient, possibly deluded people to define the terms of consideration you award a concept?
What bugs me is when an atheist who has rejected the Christian god that he or she learned in the world applies that to all Gods, even those they may never have heard of. This is the height of arrogance and contradiction, as it makes the atheist religious.
However, in this case, as I have pointed out above, you're letting people you don't trust set the considerations for the definitions.
In other words: Should someone someday find a "soul", do you really expect that it will look like people have described in religious philosophy?
But is there not a possibility that the limited linguistic scope of the past might stain the present considerations?
Is there any one idea of a soul? No. There are many diverse ideas of what the soul is. If we limit ourselves to the characteristics of any one idea, we limit our scope of inquiry. However, we are also limiting our scope of inquiry if we accept at face value what is said.
* excerpts from tiassa's post in this thread (apologies for chopping it up). emphasis mine.
does tiassa rock or what!
Originally posted by tiassa
What "could" a soul be? Well, the mind-uploaders might have an answer for that question someday. Perhaps it's a strictly bio-electrical phenomenon. I still hold to my conclusion that life is not a chance occurrence but a statistical necessity in the Universe, so it's not as if a soul must be mystical.
If you trust the standard definition of the soul, then the argument freezes there. We doubt everything else about Christianity, for instance ... why not doubt the definition of the soul? Without hostility, sarcasm, or otherwise--for it might be possible to interpret it that way--the result of trusting the Christian definition of the soul in order to argue about it seems more a tool to beat down an idea rather than to explore its possibilities.
Do you trust an ancient, possibly deluded people to define the terms of consideration you award a concept?
What bugs me is when an atheist who has rejected the Christian god that he or she learned in the world applies that to all Gods, even those they may never have heard of. This is the height of arrogance and contradiction, as it makes the atheist religious.
However, in this case, as I have pointed out above, you're letting people you don't trust set the considerations for the definitions.
In other words: Should someone someday find a "soul", do you really expect that it will look like people have described in religious philosophy?
But is there not a possibility that the limited linguistic scope of the past might stain the present considerations?
Is there any one idea of a soul? No. There are many diverse ideas of what the soul is. If we limit ourselves to the characteristics of any one idea, we limit our scope of inquiry. However, we are also limiting our scope of inquiry if we accept at face value what is said.
* excerpts from tiassa's post in this thread (apologies for chopping it up). emphasis mine.
does tiassa rock or what!
Last edited:
Cris,
It is very disappointing that U picked up 2 lines to emphasize ur point but avoiding the whole post where the whole issue of such possiblity was discussed..! Dice example is fine. But i don't claim 13 (God) for sure.. U refuted spookz's point that brain could be the interface of the soul.. i elaborated why ur refutation is not fair.. now U r unfair to me too..!
Edit : Hope U have not decided to answer "No" for ever.. got this idea from ur writing of my alias name with a typo..!
Last edited:
This is a gross speculation. Medicine and operations are alterations of the the existing functions within the body. There is no fear and sadness potion botteled up to be given to the person. What you do is induce chemicals to the body to impair or highten the functionality.
If the human body is nothing but biological, physical, and chemical reactions, then we sure can prevent death and aging in humans by altering the reactions the way we deem fit..... Don't get too exicted guys, nomatter how scientific we get, we'll never be able to escape death, because we're not in control of the age of the soul.
Cris,
Secondly it is because, as you said, because ultrasonics are an extension of sound itself. How about some others that we have no clue about?
All I wanted was to open a possibility first, then gather evidence to see if it is probable- going in steps. And how dare would I pass a threat to a mod, won't my soul be out of the board!
There are yet two questions I have for you Cris.
1) Why is it that people with perfect physical brains go mad sometimes, for no physical reason?
2) Why is it that a lot of neurosurgeons/doctors believe in god and and the supernatural?
I don't think seeing heat is the same sense as feeling heat. Secondly if these senses are mere extensions, that is worse. We are not even capable of seeing things right then. Leaving the semantics aside, this only shows we do not see a lot that exists, of course, if we intend to see it with an open mind.
No. And can you? That is precisely the point- we are so small neither of us can even speculate. Only, I am open to accept a possibility and you are not.
Firstly, don't you agree that ultrasonics existed 5000 years back when we didn't know they existed- i.e., wise men had no evidence of ultrasonics- so they did not know they existed. Somebody had to imagine and discover!
Secondly it is because, as you said, because ultrasonics are an extension of sound itself. How about some others that we have no clue about?
Correct. So with what evidence do you say a soul cannot exist? Just because a broom can do work similar to a vacuum cleaner, it does not mean a vacuum cleaner does not exist- so a brain and soul. Also see my earlier point on evidence.
But all we are saying is that the imaginative idea is possible while you tend to stifle all imagination because it doesn't fit your logic.
Right. When I don't know what a blaityam is, how can I deny its existence unless I just want to argue for the heck of it?
And if you haven't understood what a soul is yet, what are arguing about?
Fine, can I take it that you are not sure if unknown things such as souls may exist far from earth?
Exactly. So we may not make conclusions on things we know little about yet, like souls.
Fine. Good that you admit that there is a possibility, however small it is- you don't deny souls categorically anymore. Like they say, possible but not probable.
That is the core of the problem. You are limiting yourself to two possibilities, while there could be many more that you wouldn't like to imagine.
All I wanted was to open a possibility first, then gather evidence to see if it is probable- going in steps. And how dare would I pass a threat to a mod, won't my soul be out of the board!
There are yet two questions I have for you Cris.
1) Why is it that people with perfect physical brains go mad sometimes, for no physical reason?
2) Why is it that a lot of neurosurgeons/doctors believe in god and and the supernatural?
Sorry, I didn't mean to derail your position.
I don't think that's so, I can't tell you how many times I've viewed a thread and said to myself, "Well, Cris has this one, he's covering it better than I could." but thank you for the compliment.
~Raithere
Eccles
"Neuroscientist Sir John Eccles dismisses the materialistic standpoint as a "superstition"
First off, Eccles is apparently a spiritualist and a theist. He begins with the premise that souls exist.
"I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of 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 a material world." - Evolution of the Brain, Creation of the Self, Routledge, 1989, p. 241.
"with hominid evolution there eventually came higher levels of conscious experiences, and ultimately in Homo sapiens sapiens -- self-consciousness -- which is the unique life-long experience of each human SELF, and which we must regard as a miracle beyond Darwinian evolution." - How the Self Controls Its Brain, p. 139.
"Nature taken in its abstract sense, cannot be 'unconscious,' as it is the emanation from, and thus an aspect (on the manifested plane) of the ABSOLUTE consciousness. Where is that daring man who would presume to deny to vegetation and even to minerals a consciousness of their own. All he can say is, that this consciousness is beyond his comprehension." - The Secret Doctrine, TUP, 1977 (1888), 1:277fn.
The question I would pose is, "Why do we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls?" Upon what evidence or logic does he base this premise? I challenge that there is no such evidence or strong logical support for this. He begins with an unfounded conclusion and is merely working to support this conclusion.
~Raithere
"Neuroscientist Sir John Eccles dismisses the materialistic standpoint as a "superstition"
First off, Eccles is apparently a spiritualist and a theist. He begins with the premise that souls exist.
"I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of 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 a material world." - Evolution of the Brain, Creation of the Self, Routledge, 1989, p. 241.
"with hominid evolution there eventually came higher levels of conscious experiences, and ultimately in Homo sapiens sapiens -- self-consciousness -- which is the unique life-long experience of each human SELF, and which we must regard as a miracle beyond Darwinian evolution." - How the Self Controls Its Brain, p. 139.
"Nature taken in its abstract sense, cannot be 'unconscious,' as it is the emanation from, and thus an aspect (on the manifested plane) of the ABSOLUTE consciousness. Where is that daring man who would presume to deny to vegetation and even to minerals a consciousness of their own. All he can say is, that this consciousness is beyond his comprehension." - The Secret Doctrine, TUP, 1977 (1888), 1:277fn.
The question I would pose is, "Why do we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls?" Upon what evidence or logic does he base this premise? I challenge that there is no such evidence or strong logical support for this. He begins with an unfounded conclusion and is merely working to support this conclusion.
~Raithere
Heflores,
This is not gross spec. In fact i agreed with Raithere's point of inducing emotions & sensations thro drugs (phsychiatrists do the same to patients to keep their emotions within control - if those drugs used without prescription they r as dangerous as dirty drugs ). sensations could be induced thro proper EM signals to the brain.. as for as death is concerned i've not speculated anything.. i too hate to believe the human experience is just as a result of chemical/physical/biological reactions alone.. (soul might be the audience not just the brain). if have u read my post fully u would realize that i was stressing the possiblity of soul/God beyond the materialistic effects..!
- Status