Souls?

[Lawdog]

Lawdog,


Nothing immaterial has yet been shown to exist. Claiming something immaterial cannot be justified. Conscience is yet another example of abstraction.

The discovery of something is not necessarily a determinate of its existance. People knew that there was a continent beyond the Atlantic before Columbus. Furthermore, consider mathematics and the Natural Laws of the Universe, like gravity, these are static unchanging invisible realities which were always there, even before the great physicists "discovered" them. in the case of gravity you have an invisible law deeply effecting physical/material objects. The disobedience of Adam, a spiritual choice, causes the fall of all humanity and cosmos into a state of physical ailment and weakness, and our praeternatural powers were lost. This is why men do not have the innate survival skills of other animals. Physical objects in turn may effect spiritual change in the intermediate domain, for example, the material action of human sin can cause the soul to enter a state of spiritual death.
Only visible things are subject to physical change, whereas invisible things are not under the power of change, at least not in a way familiar to us. Also, you are asking for something to be discovered whose nature is not discoverable, since not only is it a mystery but it does not fall under the domain of secular science but of divine science (theology).

Nevertheless, no one is disputing your right to doubt the existance of something that has never been officially "discovered", though some would say that the discovery you are seeking is The REVEALED WORD OF GOD. Men for good reason doubted God's power and influence in their lives, before the incarnation, but after Jesus showed forth his divine life on earth, the spiritual laws of reality were "discovered" by men through REVELATION.

 

[Raithere]

The study I posted above, which was conducted by recognised scientists, established that such an "immaterial influence" exists (the rats behaved as if they had the experience which had been acquired by different (genetically or otherwise) unconnected groep of rats).

No. My point is that, in fact, it does not. Agar's study was not designed to test this hypothesis. There are any number of possible reasons that might account for the results found that were not being accounted for (smarter rats, environmental variables, issues with the design of the maze, different diets). Unless the experiment is designed to test a specific variable all you have is an interesting curiosity.

That you have to reference a 50 year old study that wasn't designed to test the hypothesis proposed and that you don't have anything current strongly suggests that there is little or nothing to the hypothesis. The best 'evidence' that Sheldrake has been about to come up with in the last 15 years is anecdotal (regarding bird skills and psychic pets). Those few tests he has performed (with learning Morse code, qwerty keyboard, and performing crosswords) have been lambasted as inherently problematic and biased.

In your argument: <i>if there was an anomaly in that needed explaining it surely would be impossible to ignore at this point</I>... you misunderstand the problem: science doesn't have any equipment to study immaterial phenomenon whatsoever.

Not at all, if knowledge/experience can be transmitted though MR (or some other means) we should see a pervasive trend in learning all the time. E.G. We should find that as more school-children are taught a subject the easier it is for the next class to learn it. Since the advent of public education we should see massive trends in the ease of leaning how to read and perform mathematics. But we don't see this. Children have to labor over math and reading just the same today as they did several hundred years ago, despite the fact that hundreds of millions more people know how to do this today than back in the 1700s. The trend would be ubiquitous and unavoidable. If Sheldrake's hypothesis were correct it shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks or months to learn to read by this point.

The experiment wasn't further studied because of science's incapacity to study it further - to ignore it was/is the only position the science could take concerning these findings.

Wrong. If it has an effect upon the physical world we can study it even if we cannot detect it directly. It would be as unavoidable as gravity.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Raithere,

No. I'm not going to refer to scripture, too much room there for getting lost in semantic and interpretative games.

Then you cannot give a serious argument regarding the soul.

One will quickly note that definition of the soul is rather difficult, apparently even for people who know they have one. But there are certainly common themes here that easily support the basis for Boris's working definition:

If you cannot discuss it, then don't bother.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Hapsburg]

How many times do we have to tell you? Even if jesus existed, he wasn't a white guy with blue eyes.

 

[Raithere]

Let's consider what "information" actually entails. Consider for a telephone line with computers talking to each other over it. If there is no one there on either end to read the printout, is there any information transferred? Certainly there is electrical activity, but at what point does that activity become "information"? I believe the answer must be "upon cognition of it". Do you consider either computer to be "an observer"? I contend they are not. Until "observed", they are "part of the tao".

I disagree. Information is the degree of organization (as contrasted with entropy) in a system. Cognition is merely the process of incorporating it within a larger system of organization. Meaning is how/what it interelates within the system.

http://www.sveiby.com/articles/Information.html
http://www.unf.edu/~alderman/BLISS2/information.html

Where does the interaction between length and width take place? It's the same type of relationship as far as I see it, except as I noted - this relationship could be simulated with holography. They are related because they are both part of the whole.

The interaction takes place in the larger geometry. It is only there that the components meet. Without the coordinate system of a larger geometry you don't have a relationship, you merely have two lines.

and from my perspective, this "incompleteness" goes to my own point, in that any conceptual element isn't necessarily determinant or complete. Again, this was regarding "information" - which should be "complete" and "determinant" in and of itself. So again, concepts don't fit any "information" theory I've encountered, yet they are abundant in mind - so it's not necessarily just "information" as you asserted before.

I agree that any conceptual element isn't necessarily determinant or complete. It only has meaning within the incorporating system. Again, to me this demonstrates that it is not independent but a part of the physical system incorporating it.

I understand that, which is why I said something like "as we know it" regarding physicality. I'd think also, one would have to accept that for instance in the context of string theory - there are 'physical dimensions' that humans cannot 'physically touch' as we know it. If the hypothesis is correct for instance, you still cannot "touch" imaginary time with your finger for instance.

This doesn't mean that its non-physical. Its still part of the ST we're in. Or, more accurately, we exist in S,T, iT.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

If you cannot discuss it, then don't bother.

Ditto.

~Raithere

 

[(Q)]

Then you cannot give a serious argument regarding the soul.

Can you?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ditto.

~Raithere

Yeah......that's real clever.

Jan

 

[Lawdog]

How many times do we have to tell you? Even if jesus existed, he wasn't a white guy with blue eyes.

Well, ok...but just because he has blue eyes doesnt mean he is not a jew.

 

[wesmorris]

I disagree. Information is the degree of organization (as contrasted with entropy) in a system. Cognition is merely the process of incorporating it within a larger system of organization. Meaning is how/what it interelates within the system.

http://www.sveiby.com/articles/Information.html
http://www.unf.edu/~alderman/BLISS2/information.html

But you dodge. There is no "organization" with nothing to realize the organization. It's just "stuff" until granted the label/concept of order by mind.

The interaction takes place in the larger geometry. It is only there that the components meet. Without the coordinate system of a larger geometry you don't have a relationship, you merely have two lines.

Agreed. I simply suspect a larger geometry as I've said. IMO, mind can't be accounted for without it.

I agree that any conceptual element isn't necessarily determinant or complete. It only has meaning within the incorporating system. Again, to me this demonstrates that it is not independent but a part of the physical system incorporating it.

But I never said it was "independant". I said it's consequential, related, dependent upon.. but not the same as, as we usually consider the notion.

This doesn't mean that its non-physical. Its still part of the ST we're in. Or, more accurately, we exist in S,T, iT.

Again, that's why I specified "as is generally thought of" or whatever. As we usually consider "space-time" what I'm eluding to is non-physical.

 

[ellion]

How can the brain and the body be expressions of the soul?

how do you whistle?

The brain and the body are created by physical processes that are very well known.

[the physical conditions of] the body and brain are emanations of the soul. when using the word body and brain i mean all that the physiology that goes into making that physical presence.

Where, when, and how does the soul intercede to affect the development of a brain and a body from the gametes of the parents?

i dont see it too clearly [so dont take this as gospel] but i would geuss some point in the period of gestation between conception and the indivdualisation of the fetus, the spirit of the incarnating soul [the father] takes presidence of its form within the womb of matter [the mother]

 

[geeser]

The discovery of something is not necessarily a determinate of its existance.

if it's discovered it must exist.

People knew that there was a continent beyond the Atlantic before Columbus. Furthermore, consider mathematics and the Natural Laws of the Universe, like gravity, these are static unchanging invisible realities which were always there, even before the great physicists "discovered" them. in the case of gravity you have an invisible law deeply effecting physical/material objects.

well reasoned intelligent statements, and then.

The disobedience of Adam, a spiritual choice, causes the fall of all humanity and cosmos into a state of physical ailment and weakness, and our praeternatural powers were lost.

wtf, happened, but wait it gets worse.

This is why men do not have the innate survival skills of other animals. Physical objects in turn may effect spiritual change in the intermediate domain, for example, the material action of human sin can cause the soul to enter a state of spiritual death.

me and my mate think,

Only visible things are subject to physical change, whereas invisible things are not under the power of change, at least not in a way familiar to us. Also, you are asking for something to be discovered whose nature is not discoverable, since not only is it a mystery but it does not fall under the domain of secular science but of divine science (theology).

if it's not discoverable then how do you know so much, have you discovered it.

 

[ellion]

Nice deflection, but that doesn't fly. If the mind and body are the projection of the soul, and all information is already in the soul, as you claim, then for the mind and body to have senses is pointless, as we can rely on our soul for information, yet we have senses and we greatly rely on them. Why? No deflections please.

it has somehting to do with our position in evolution. not to clear on this either. much of it is to do with the expereinces that we are aquiring through the relationships to environmental factors. it is difficult to be specific as environmental factors and the expereince of the physical is so varied.

Fair enough, but one must have some iota of information from reality in order to conceive of a soul,

that is true.

what exactly would that be?

you are asking me what iota of information would lead one to believe in a soul. what you really need to know is what iota of information would lead you to believe in a soul. i dont have the answer to that, you do!

How can 0% perception of reality lead one to believe in a soul?

agian you are asking a distorted question which leaves me geussing at what you really want to know. i think you are trying to say something like "you have no perception of a soul in reality so why do you belive in one" but you can only be assuming this is true as you have never experienced the percentage of my perception of reailty, so you need to distort it to a more comfortable approximation of your internal process. your internal process goes something like "i have no perception of a soul so why should i believe in one" and again like the question above it is you that has the answer.
forgive me if you think i am deflecting the matter.

Sure. But if you use an analogy, try one that fits instead, please?

am i this pedantic too?

Sorry, misunderstanding on both parts. What I meant, and what boris' post alludes, is not the result of the projection, the mind and body, but the actually connectivity between the soul and the mind and body, the projection itself.

If I may use an analogy, a projector throws up images on to a screen. The 'connectivity,' so to speak, would be the light travelling between the projector and the screen, while the end result is the image created by the light.

In that analogy, you describe the image as the mind and body. I am asking about the light itself and how it produced the image. Is that clearer?

maybe.

the light is something which is not the on the screen, so to understand the light we have to stop living in the 2dimensional flatness of the screen. to undertand the light you need to start to be the light. when you start to be the light, you are more of you real self because you never where that 2 dimensional flatness, that was an illusion created by the effect of the light upon the screen. this shining on to the screen was a neccessary part of the film. because as the light you did not undersatand the 2 dimensional flatness and so you cold not be your real self then either.

i shoud say this is me, i dont wish to make this your journey. this is my journey i just took the you form your analogy. i dont know how it is for you, but this is how i see me. i do appreciate that you dont see your self this way.

You've hit upon that which precludes the soul, the fact that we are not immortal, that we have no soul, and that the way we live on is in the minds and hearts of those who knew us, family and friends.

maybe you are right maybe you are not. but i can see myself whistling melodies in eternity.

 

[Raithere]

Yeah......that's real clever.

Well Jan, I'm more than happy to discuss the subject. But I've played this game with you before and I'm not going to be dragged into an argument about semantics and interpretation of scripture.

I've provided more than enough evidence to show that Boris's working definition of a soul does indeed conform to a broad ranging theistic interpretation of the concept. If you have further problems with the definition take it up here as I have already requested or contact those who promote these interpretations. Till then I don't think we have much to say to each other regarding the subject.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

But you dodge. There is no "organization" with nothing to realize the organization. It's just "stuff" until granted the label/concept of order by mind.

You're edging close to the mind is reality here. I have to disagree. Order and chaos are indeed categories, but the relationships exist independent of the perception of those relationships. Otherwise the world would fall into chaos when it was not being observed. Or did Neptune merely appear out of chaos after we built a telescope capable of detecting it?

Agreed. I simply suspect a larger geometry as I've said. IMO, mind can't be accounted for without it.

What is it that cannot be accounted for?

But I never said it was "independant". I said it's consequential, related, dependent upon.. but not the same as, as we usually consider the notion.

Then you've lost me. You seem to be asserting that the abstract is some sort of projection of a physical phenomenon but what is it that is being projected?

Again, that's why I specified "as is generally thought of" or whatever. As we usually consider "space-time" what I'm eluding to is non-physical.

I guess I need some clarification then. When you assert that components of the mind, abstract ideas, and the like are non-physical what do you mean? Do you simply mean undectedable by current methods but potentially observable phenomena or do you mean that they're intrinsically undetectable?

~Raithere

 

[Hapsburg]

Well, ok...but just because he has blue eyes doesnt mean he is not a jew.

I was more pointing out that your picture (from a movie) makes him look like a white guy, which is entirely and completely wrong and racist.

 

[(Q)]

i dont have the answer to that, you do!

Yes, I think I do. IMSC, the word 'soul' came from the Greek (or Latin) term, to breath(e) and has evolved over time to form the concept of a soul. Of course, no one knew anything about the brain or the mind back then and could not understand its workings on a physical level. The rest is history.

you can only be assuming this is true as you have never experienced the percentage of my perception of reailty

I would agree with you if there were in fact more than one realities. I would wonder how one could perceive reality for anything different than what it is?

but i can see myself whistling melodies in eternity.

So do I, along with other enjoyable activities like playing golf with Tiger Woods or hockey with Wayne Gretzky. (Yes, I know they're still alive.)

However, I view those activities in eternity merely as wishful thinking.

 

[water]

Iiiiiiiiiiiih, Robert Powell!

*swoons*

 

[wesmorris]

You're edging close to the mind is reality here. I have to disagree.

Actually that's a true statement in a backwards kind of way. The thing being is that with no mind to render something "reality" there is just a blur of function/interaction that has no name or dilineation from anything. Surely you understand that part. So "mind is reality" in the sense that with no "mind" there is nothing to apply the notion of "reality".

Order and chaos are indeed categories, but the relationships exist independent of the perception of those relationships.

See this is where it's kind of squishy. Sure "they exist" but they are NOT relationships until someone/something notices the differences and labels them as such. Like I say, until then they are just a blur of meaningless function. There is no "meaning" to their function until someone/something cogitates such meaning.

Otherwise the world would fall into chaos when it was not being observed. Or did Neptune merely appear out of chaos after we built a telescope capable of detecting it?

Hehe. I don't know for sure but would suspect it was there prior to someone observing it... but it was utterly meaningless without something think the meaning to be so. By meaningless I simply mean "lacking meaning of any sort", because meaning only exists in consciousness.

What is it that cannot be accounted for?

Basically, the "observer of self". I sometimes think of it as "meaning". Whatever is the difference between an operating computer program and a thinking being. That can't be accounted for. To me, it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that computers cannot be conscious. Have you seen the relevant portain of "the emperor's new mind" by Mr. Penrose?

Then you've lost me. You seem to be asserting that the abstract is some sort of projection of a physical phenomenon but what is it that is being projected?

"that which is internal". A reflection of self that interacts with the other reflections in the internal mirror, behaving in accordance with the "rules of abstract space" (whatever they are, I might hypothesize as "pattern recognition" or something along those lines).

I guess I need some clarification then. When you assert that components of the mind, abstract ideas, and the like are non-physical what do you mean?

I mean "it's not your arm" or a chair, or voltage or charge as they are currently defined. You can't beat it with a stick. You can however, beat what it's connected to with a stick and it will think it sucks, unless it's masochistic.

Do you simply mean undectedable by current methods but potentially observable phenomena or do you mean that they're intrinsically undetectable?

I mean potentially observable phenomena. I figure it's either a holographic property, or somehow the brain stumbled upon a means of utilizing compactificated dimensions or something like that. The only think that should be intrinsically undetectable would be nothing as far as it seems at the moment. I dunno though, I'm no physicist.

Oh, and to correct myself... I'm not sure it can be directly observed or just inferred from observation.. so...

 

[superluminal]

wes:

To me, it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that computers cannot be conscious. Have you seen the relevant portain of "the emperor's new mind" by Mr. Penrose?

I don't by his whole argument from non-computability. Most cognitive scientists don't either. I am convinced beyond a doubt that there is only "brain" no "mind". Mind is simply how the brain describes it's own current inability to understand itself sufficiently.

To state that computers cannot be conscious is to imply some mystical aspect to the human brain that can never be captured by some other kind of "hardware". Why could not a neural network "computer" of sufficient complexity and self interaction (reproducing the function of neurons in the human brain) become self aware and conscious?

Is there any evidence (beyond our own self aggrandizement of just how amazing we think we are) for the existence of a mystical property of the brain called "mind"?