Souls?
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Do I have time to actually read threads? No. But I disagree on principle alone. Can you summarize it? I still disagree.
I have to go to bed anyway. My insomnia is giving way to mild delerium. blurg.
I have to go to bed anyway. My insomnia is giving way to mild delerium. blurg.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=20162&page=2&pp=40
Just skim through to where I start posting and read the exchange between rus and I. Keep going. It's keen.
I converted him, or rather, seeded a conversion that he himself did.
We are wes. Wes are we.
Look deep into the light in our eyes.
Just skim through to where I start posting and read the exchange between rus and I. Keep going. It's keen.
I converted him, or rather, seeded a conversion that he himself did.
We are wes. Wes are we.
Look deep into the light in our eyes.
Sarkus,
What is the theme of this so-called debate?
This can also be said of personal expression.
Yet we can interpret the signals from any brain as the result of specific action/perception/stimulus, despite the subjects being totally different personalities.
Maybe, maybe not.
That cannot be his definition, as he states that there is NO ROOM for a soul, after looking inside the brain. This means he sees the soul as material (size/dimension), or it performs some action, separate to the brain which can be observed (via senses). Either way it must occupy some space.
Which is enough information to come to a conclusion. In Boris's case, he has not given any information. "Immaterial" means basically a non-thing, but still he gives the impression that he has come to the conclusion, through study, that a non-thing does not exist.
I'm afraid the only way we can enter into any meaningful discussion about the soul is to incorperate religious philosophy, as scientific method on its own, is wholey insufficient.
Please stop with the atheist, dogmatic, approach of theists failing to understand logic, or science, as this will only fuel flaming, plus the subject of the soul, like music, is way broader than logic or scientific method.
Then why LOOK for something which is immaterial?
Does that make sense to you?
Jan Ardena.
What is the theme of this so-called debate?
This can also be said of personal expression.
Yet we can interpret the signals from any brain as the result of specific action/perception/stimulus, despite the subjects being totally different personalities.
Maybe, maybe not.
That cannot be his definition, as he states that there is NO ROOM for a soul, after looking inside the brain. This means he sees the soul as material (size/dimension), or it performs some action, separate to the brain which can be observed (via senses). Either way it must occupy some space.
Which is enough information to come to a conclusion. In Boris's case, he has not given any information. "Immaterial" means basically a non-thing, but still he gives the impression that he has come to the conclusion, through study, that a non-thing does not exist.
I'm afraid the only way we can enter into any meaningful discussion about the soul is to incorperate religious philosophy, as scientific method on its own, is wholey insufficient.
Please stop with the atheist, dogmatic, approach of theists failing to understand logic, or science, as this will only fuel flaming, plus the subject of the soul, like music, is way broader than logic or scientific method.
Then why LOOK for something which is immaterial?
Does that make sense to you?
Jan Ardena.
the information does not need to pass to the soul, it is already in the soul.
Then, what is the point of having sensory information if its already in the soul and the mind and body are the projection of the soul?
i dont know how to put this into a language that you will understand. if you had experienced it your self you would just get it, and you would not have a need to question it and there would be no confusion.
The problem with that statement is that most theists use it as a convenient way to not answer a question, not that I'm saying you're doing that as well. But the other problem is that one cannot tell if the experience is little more than what ones imagination can conjur, or some other mundane explanation of the brains functions. So, the question would be posed, how do you know its not in your imagination or otherwise?
the soul is more than the brain. your question is similar to saying why is the universe different from the earth. one has created the other and the lesser exists in, and because of, the greater.
A poor analogy, since we can clearly distinguish the Earth from the rest of the universe.
i am not sure there is a communication as you imagine. as i said above the brain is the expression of the soul .
In your opinion, do you think that 'expression/projection' will ever be detected?
i dont think there is a word for what is happening when the soul si incarnating a physical presence.
Why not? Theists have had thousands of years to come up with some sort of definition describing the souls incarnation of a physical presence.
Could it be that theists can't agree on a definition? That would make no sense if everyone had the experience, as you've already mentioned above. It should be an easy answer, clearly defined by now.
we can expereince this projection for what it is. it may have something to do with the fact that we are the projection, as though we are looking at our selves but not seeing who really are.
Fair enough, I think I'm beginning to understand your position somewhat.
Would you say that without the souls projection, the mind and the body would cease to function? In other words, can the mind and body continue to exist without a soul?
Then, what is the point of having sensory information if its already in the soul and the mind and body are the projection of the soul?
i dont know how to put this into a language that you will understand. if you had experienced it your self you would just get it, and you would not have a need to question it and there would be no confusion.
The problem with that statement is that most theists use it as a convenient way to not answer a question, not that I'm saying you're doing that as well. But the other problem is that one cannot tell if the experience is little more than what ones imagination can conjur, or some other mundane explanation of the brains functions. So, the question would be posed, how do you know its not in your imagination or otherwise?
the soul is more than the brain. your question is similar to saying why is the universe different from the earth. one has created the other and the lesser exists in, and because of, the greater.
A poor analogy, since we can clearly distinguish the Earth from the rest of the universe.
i am not sure there is a communication as you imagine. as i said above the brain is the expression of the soul .
In your opinion, do you think that 'expression/projection' will ever be detected?
i dont think there is a word for what is happening when the soul si incarnating a physical presence.
Why not? Theists have had thousands of years to come up with some sort of definition describing the souls incarnation of a physical presence.
Could it be that theists can't agree on a definition? That would make no sense if everyone had the experience, as you've already mentioned above. It should be an easy answer, clearly defined by now.
we can expereince this projection for what it is. it may have something to do with the fact that we are the projection, as though we are looking at our selves but not seeing who really are.
Fair enough, I think I'm beginning to understand your position somewhat.
Would you say that without the souls projection, the mind and the body would cease to function? In other words, can the mind and body continue to exist without a soul?
I second you, Jan.Jan Ardena said:
Without defining what he is denying, what is Boris arguing against?
And the whole argument of Boris is based on assumptions limited by his frame of understanding. Why should one expect a point of contact between matter and soul- can that be the only way of communication?
And how can you research the interaction of two things, when you aren't even good to define one of them?
And why is the physical setup of brain so impossible to create in lab- if it were just a bunch of neurons and synapses? Are you saying science is not yet advanced to do this, but is advanced enough to rule out something that it is unable to even define yet?
Thanks.
And the whole argument of Boris is based on assumptions limited by his frame of understanding. Why should one expect a point of contact between matter and soul- can that be the only way of communication?
Then please enlighten us all from your frame of understanding?
And how can you research the interaction of two things, when you aren't even good to define one of them?
Can YOU define that one?
Are you saying science is not yet advanced to do this, but is advanced enough to rule out something that it is unable to even define yet?
Boris' post argues from the point of view that the soul is immaterial, in other words, not made of material. If you think otherwise, please explain?
Then please enlighten us all from your frame of understanding?
And how can you research the interaction of two things, when you aren't even good to define one of them?
Can YOU define that one?
Are you saying science is not yet advanced to do this, but is advanced enough to rule out something that it is unable to even define yet?
Boris' post argues from the point of view that the soul is immaterial, in other words, not made of material. If you think otherwise, please explain?
In other words you begin with the premise of the soul and build upon that premise. But you still haven't explained what a soul is. Do only humans have souls or are they floating around all over the place. Can a soul be detected by physical mean? If so; how? If not; why? Removing the body and the brain and indeed the mind as you state, what is it that is left?ellion said:
~Raithere
The first point you need to get enlightened on is to get OUT of frames. Your (or anybody's) frame is based on a little understanding of the environment; and this is what we call science.(Q) said:
And remember science is limited by what humans can perceive today- a little beyond the five senses. But you can't be sure that is all that exists in the universe.
Your (or anybody's) frame is based on a little understanding of the environment; and this is what we call science.
Science lets us understand the environment - so, if it doesn't exist in the environment, where else would it exist?
But you can't be sure that is all that exists in the universe.
That is much of the crux of the argument. Theists believe a soul exists, so they must have some 'frame' from which they came to this conclusion.
I can't, because my science is more or less as limited as yours. So let both us have the maturity to admit "we don't know YET".
Fine, but what would make one believe a soul exists if "we don't know YET?"
I am saying the point of view itself rests on certain assumptions
What assumptions?
The first point you need to get enlightened on is to get OUT of frames.
Does that mean I should preclude reality with fantasy?
Science lets us understand the environment - so, if it doesn't exist in the environment, where else would it exist?
But you can't be sure that is all that exists in the universe.
That is much of the crux of the argument. Theists believe a soul exists, so they must have some 'frame' from which they came to this conclusion.
I can't, because my science is more or less as limited as yours. So let both us have the maturity to admit "we don't know YET".
Fine, but what would make one believe a soul exists if "we don't know YET?"
I am saying the point of view itself rests on certain assumptions
What assumptions?
The first point you need to get enlightened on is to get OUT of frames.
Does that mean I should preclude reality with fantasy?
Raithere,
He defines the soul as soley immaterial, yet he argues the if the soul transmits information to the material body, scientists would be able to detect the source of this information from the moment the soul enters the body.
So what type of information would he expect to find?
What makes him think the soul enters the body at any given moment?
How could he expect to find anything that he believes is purely immaterial, by scientific method?
Apart from being immaterial what does he think the soul is?
Based on that definition, how would he go about finding the soul?
What does he think the soul is, why it would need to transmit or receive material infromation?
Apart from immateriality, what is this phenomenon, and what type of effect should/would it have on the body.
A human is more than a body, otherwise we would stuff our loved ones after their death, and there would be no need of grief or bereavment.
And what interacts with the brain?
Not quite sure what you mean by this, maybe you can elaborate.
Jan Ardena.
He defines the soul as soley immaterial, yet he argues the if the soul transmits information to the material body, scientists would be able to detect the source of this information from the moment the soul enters the body.
So what type of information would he expect to find?
What makes him think the soul enters the body at any given moment?
How could he expect to find anything that he believes is purely immaterial, by scientific method?
Apart from being immaterial what does he think the soul is?
Based on that definition, how would he go about finding the soul?
What does he think the soul is, why it would need to transmit or receive material infromation?
Apart from immateriality, what is this phenomenon, and what type of effect should/would it have on the body.
A human is more than a body, otherwise we would stuff our loved ones after their death, and there would be no need of grief or bereavment.
And what interacts with the brain?
Not quite sure what you mean by this, maybe you can elaborate.
Jan Ardena.
You are not on my point. Science lets us understand the environment, but not yet completely. So there is much more about the environment that is not yet known- and soul could be part of this.(Q) said:
I have never said soul exists. I am for now saying Boris' assumptions are absolutely dumb, unless he has access to complete science that we do not know yet.
Converse to a theist's frame, you are in an atheist frame, that sounds more dogmatic. While you profess to be rational and logical, you are in fact, going exactly against the precepts of science, by debunking the unknown.
Where did I say soul exists? I said we cannot yet prove the existence or non-existence of a soul with our limited understanding.
That soul has to necessarily have a point of contact to the material self; and that this should be detectable with our existing means of science.
Of course not, but you should be open to facts unknown to science. e.g., can you sense ultrasonics that bats can? Until such time this was realized by science, no body had known that ultrasonics existed.
Thanks.
Q said:
what is the point of having sensory information[/fullstop]? whether in the brain or in the soul the information is serving the same purpose.
thank you, i am trying.
how do you know the sun is hot? or the sky is up? perception and discrimination. i know when iam imagining and i know when iam identifying reality, i am not saying that i dont get confused misinterpret reailty or that i am perceiveing 100% accuratley, but there is a consistency of identification.
it also falters on the fact that the earth is ginormous ball spinning really, really fast, round a huge ball of fire. the fact that the lesser exists within and because of the greater holds true, so can you forgive my weak metaphorical selctions? please?
well, considereing that the projection / expression is the body and brain [and physical conditions] you are asking me will the body or brain [] ever be detected, you seem to be misunderstanding me. we can already detect the brain and the body.
i dont know why there is no word. maybe there is a word. as i have said above i'm not sure what is meant by soul there is no consensual definition. i theists cant agree what god is and cant agree what the soul is why would it be any different with a word for what the soul is doing when it incarnates a physical presence?
it could well be. this is apllicable to more than defintions too?
maybe it is in some quarters. maybe it is only certain sectors that are causing division. maybe not everone is have the same experience. there is much diversity, why should it be any different?
that is good [that you understand me] but dont let me lead you, i might not really take this position.
these are just my interpretations of words that are in common usage. like i have said i dont like the words because theya re misunderstood and so become confusing. anyway to answer your question. the soul is a projection or expression of god. it is the same process in a higher state.
there are souls that are not incarnating.
thera are souls that are liberated form the restrictions of matter.
again the terminology lets me down here.
when you say floating around all over the place, it would not be like a soul shakedown party.
what are physical means? we are prone to be lost in defintions of the material and immaterial again here.
what ever you are removing the body and the brain from? that is what will be left.
Who is it that needs to smell the roses, I wonder...
We may not have reached the stage of limitless knowledge, but saying it is going against the precepts of science not to give any credence to the existence of a 'soul', doesn't make sense. You are then asking us to become theists.
We know more about life and the human body that perhaps anything. Since the bible (which you people follow to the letter) was written, we found out that life came from interstellar dust that collapsed into itself via gravity which caused the birth of the sun and the planets, of which the ingredients for life were there. We also know that life evolved from the most basic of organic molecules which is rather different than the adam and eve scenario which sadly, many people (mostly dumb yanks) still believe today due to the ignorance of their faith.
What I see from people here is that they are arguing in favour of something that probably doesn't exist, but also that they WANT to believe it, because their faith tells them to believe it. Their faith has already been proved wrong many times before, but I don't understand why that bothers theists. It's not the dudes fault who wrote the bible, because human knowledge evolves, and if only theists evolved with it.
If a soul exists within this universe, it is likely science will find it, because science doesn't descriminate. It just doesn't often find things which live in the fanatical mind of a theist... because they might as well believe in the tooth fairy.
We may not have reached the stage of limitless knowledge, but saying it is going against the precepts of science not to give any credence to the existence of a 'soul', doesn't make sense. You are then asking us to become theists.
We know more about life and the human body that perhaps anything. Since the bible (which you people follow to the letter) was written, we found out that life came from interstellar dust that collapsed into itself via gravity which caused the birth of the sun and the planets, of which the ingredients for life were there. We also know that life evolved from the most basic of organic molecules which is rather different than the adam and eve scenario which sadly, many people (mostly dumb yanks) still believe today due to the ignorance of their faith.
What I see from people here is that they are arguing in favour of something that probably doesn't exist, but also that they WANT to believe it, because their faith tells them to believe it. Their faith has already been proved wrong many times before, but I don't understand why that bothers theists. It's not the dudes fault who wrote the bible, because human knowledge evolves, and if only theists evolved with it.
If a soul exists within this universe, it is likely science will find it, because science doesn't descriminate. It just doesn't often find things which live in the fanatical mind of a theist... because they might as well believe in the tooth fairy.