Studies say: soul exists.

[wesmorris]

Are you talking to Newton or me? since that law its from him.

I'm talking about the conclusion you draw from his words, not his words. Surely that was obvious from my comment. Why are you misdirecting the argument? Do you often suspect a person in a conversation with you is talking to astral projections or something?

 

[Tdmasta]

Wesmorris

Do you often suspect a person in a conversation with you is talking to astral projections or something?

You tried to contradict that ,since im talking about this law using the Big Bang as a physical reaction ,so i asked to you ,but if you dont believe in that Physic law its your decision...

 

[Raithere]

You tried to contradict that ,since im talking about this law using the Big Bang as a physical reaction ,so i asked to you ,but if you dont believe in that Physic law its your decision...

You’re forgetting the 1st law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy. There are both endothermic and exothermic reactions, exothermic reactions do not require an input of energy; instead they release energy. The total energy in a closed system remains constant.

But when we get to the "Big Bang" you have to start thinking in terms of quantum physics not classical physics. Newton's laws don't apply here.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

wesmorris,

Can you try it in terms of the individual?

I consider it to be the individual. I consider the soul to be the seed from which the living being develops.

I think I would consider a "soul" to be "the aspect of POV that is not physical" or "the imagnary component of perspective".... the part of your thought that is real, but not physical.

Thoughts are thoughts, they can be changed and manipulated, much like our points of view, or imagination. When we percieve physical objects, do we really see them as they are, or are they just figments of a collective imagination?

Know what I mean? Your particular "conceptual inter-relationship" and that which feels it, that is your soul.

I believe that to be a symtom of the soul.

Physical things cannot be conceptual, they can be represented by concepts, which in and of themselves, are purely non-physical.

From our perspective, physical things may not be conceptual. But again, what are physical things, but an amalgamation of energy, a translation of the brain and mind.

Even if there is a common chemical configuration of "a tree" in our minds, that still does not supply the perspective to encompass the idea of a tree and what that means, or how it - as a concept - fits into the body of your experience, or how that experience has been organized into concepts that are representative of the details of your impression of your experience over time.

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
--Albert Einstein

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tdmasta]

Raithere

But when we get to the "Big Bang" you have to start thinking in terms of quantum physics not classical physics. Newton's laws don't apply here.

The experiment of joule:

His system of interest was water in a thermally insulated container. In this container was also a paddle which was connected to the outside world (surroundings) and connected to weights on a string. Joule measured the work done by the paddle wheel and he also measured the heat created by the wheel turning in the water. Significantly, Joule found that the amount of energy done as work was converted exactly to heat. Energy was changed from one form to another (work to heat); however, no net change of energy in the system plus the surroundings occured. Energy is conserved.

Yes i agree a more deep research with quantum physics is needed for a better explanation about the Big bang, but the creation of matter out of nothing, of any kind including pure energy its still not possible, it transforms only, and its not known how it actually exists in the space, and thats applicable to any kind of matter, and from that point a creator was needed even for the own energy existence Raithere.

About soul , well just think in the train bombings in madrid yesterday, why is all those people helping out? why every goberment its against terrorists?, well thats the spirit, we simply feel and know the evil in those acts, and since most people follows the good path theyre helping each other, just because, we know and feel that its right, that easily surpasses any known logic, and breaks the barriers of intelligence to an even more advanced being like our spirit, our supercomputers will never feel or want the evil or good, since they lack soul, thats what makes us humans along being individual beings with our will and desire .

Jan Ardena

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

--Albert Einstein

Great scientific.

 

[Persol]

Its the 3rd law of Newton, you study, more often!
III.- For every action(force) there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Now THAT is funny! Do you realize that this says nothing about a force being external. Nothing stops both that action and reaction from being internal. Likewise, nothing stops the reaction from being a conversion of internal energy. But thanks... better luck next time.

 

[Persol]

About soul , well just think in the train bombings in madrid yesterday, why is all those people helping out? why every goberment its against terrorists?, well thats the spirit, we simply feel and know the evil in those acts, and since most people follows the good path theyre helping each other, just because, we know and feel that its right, that easily surpasses any known logic, and breaks the barriers of intelligence to an even more advanced being like our spirit, our supercomputers will never feel or want the evil or good, since they lack soul, thats what makes us humans along being individual beings with our will and desire.

We do it partially because of 'emotions' and partially because of logic. You help others because it feels right, and makes you feel good. You do it for the same reason you eat... it feels right and makes you feel good.

That doesn't mean it IS right.

Likewise, if we managed to create machines which were powerful enough to handle complex information comparison (thought), progamming in a simulation of the the body's chemicals (emotions) is a relatively small task. If a computer is 'rewarded' for doing something good, logic will dictate that it continues to do that. This is the equivalent of human's right/wrong and good/bad. Disagreement?

 

[Raithere]

Yes i agree a more deep research with quantum physics is needed for a better explanation about the Big bang, but the creation of matter out of nothing, of any kind including pure energy its still not possible

Actually, it is. We've gone into in some detail in this thread; http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33701

it transforms only, and its not known how it actually exists in the space, and thats applicable to any kind of matter, and from that point a creator was needed even for the own energy existence

I hesitated jumping into this thread because Persol has already done an excellent job of explaining the errors in your reasoning here. If you cannot see the errors already it's unlikely I'll be able to elucidate them any better but I'll give it a whirl.

Your argument is that matter/energy are contingent therefore something must exist that is not contingent but is necessary, namely God. It's a good argument; Adler argues the same point in "The Great Idea of God"(1).

The problem is that we do not know that the Universe is contingent. In fact, there are a few facts that cause us to seriously question the premise. Energy does not seem to be contingent (1st law of thermodynamics) neither do the fundamental forces of physics. Also, due to the uncertainty principle, energy can be borrowed from 'nothing' as long as it eventually returns to 'nothing' (virtual particles, ZPE(2)).

The other problem is the leap to God. The argument (accepting the premise) only proves that something must necessarily exist; it gives no proof as to what. The assignment to God is therefore arbitrary (unless you're willing to accept very broad definitions for God). It would be just as acceptable within the argument to assume that it is the Universe itself, or energy and the fundamental forces that are not contingent.

About soul , well just think in the train bombings in Madrid yesterday, why is all those people helping out? why every goberment its against terrorists?, well thats the spirit, we simply feel and know the evil in those acts, and since most people follows the good path theyre helping each other, just because, we know and feel that its right, that easily surpasses any known logic

There's nothing illogical about cooperation, the "Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma"(3) proves it, cooperation is ultimately in our own best interest. In fact, if we throw evolution into the mix we can even explain altruism as a cooperative strategy of genes(4). To put it simply, that we evolved to care about others is quite logical.

(1) Adler "The Great Idea of God"
http://radicalacademy.com/adlerongod.htm

(2) Virtual Particles and ZPE
http://users.erols.com/iri/ZPENERGY.html

(3)Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma
http://brembs.net/ipd/tft.html#HD_NM_8

(4)Altruism
http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/altruism.htm

~Raithere

 

[Tdmasta]

Persol

I know quite well what you mean, and you are wrong. If you disagree, provide a quote that says "all reactions must have an external force" or something simialr from a reputable site. You won't find it though.

Persol

Now THAT is funny! Do you realize that this says nothing about a force being external. Nothing stops both that action and reaction from beinginternal. Likewise, nothing stops the reaction from being a conversion of internal energy. But thanks... better luck next time.

Really if you cant read posts.... as previoulsly said , i never talked about the components of a reaction i talked about a reaction needs a force, internal or external, (told you that in a previous post!) and more funny that you even claimed that the 3rd law of Newton was not possible and now your accepting it.... ,yes go to school more often before saying things like this honest.....

Persol

We do it partially because of 'emotions' and partially because of logic. You help others because it feels right, and makes you feel good. You do it for the same reason you eat... it feels right and makes you feel good.

That doesn't mean it IS right.

Knowing if somthing is evil or good is NOT an emotion, its somthing that WE just know and understand, really we dont base on logic foundations to act good , it cuts logic and even emotins , emotions are fear and pleasure, but that its not related to evil or good , what do you think? are you just a walking supercomputer without an internal being with own decisions and personal desire? dont tell me that... do you always minimize humans to PCs? will you let someone die if he/she needs your help? it doesnt necessary feels good , and more if your own life its at risk, please dont act like a PC persol.

 

[Tdmasta]

Raithere

There's nothing illogical about cooperation, the "Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma"(3) proves it, cooperation is ultimately in our own best interest. In fact, if we throw evolution into the mix we can even explain altruism as a cooperative strategy of genes(4). To put it simply, that we evolved to care about others is quite logical.

Yes its logic to risk my life for = nothing just for saving those dying people in the train and get nothing in return...very logic........

About your other points ill go to check those sites before claiming anything more.

 

[Persol]

i never talked about the components of a reaction i talked about a reaction needs a force, internal or external
You said SPECIFICALLY "no reaction its done without another force." and "it needs an external source". Don't now try and claim you didn't. It's sitting right there on the previous page.

you even claimed that the 3rd law of Newton was not possible
LMAO. PLEASE show me where I said that? Pretty please? I said, "an external force is not required". You then called upon the 3rd law, which in no way contradicts what I said. Your problem now is that your argument was based on an external force being needed for everything. Unfortunately that is false.

yes go to school more often before saying things like this honest.....
I also find it funny that someone who can barely form a sentence is telling an engineer about the laws of physics and that he needs to go back to school.

Knowing if somthing is evil or good is NOT an emotion, its somthing that WE just know and understand
'We just know and understand'... good definition of an emotion.

emotions are fear and pleasure, but that its not related to evil or good
Yes they are, and if you can't see that you haven't experienced much of life.

are you just a walking supercomputer without an internal being with own decisions and personal desire?
All evidence points to us being a VERY complicated set of reactions. That doens't mean we don't make decisions or have desires.

do you always minimize humans to PCs
I am not minimizing. I am not the one who feels they need to pretend we are more than we are.

it doesnt necessary feels good
Well yes, it does. It's been proven in experiments. It has also been proven that people will not help others if it harms their own well being unless they are chemically entwined with that other.

please dont act like a PC persol.
Please actually try and address the thread at hand and not over simplify in order to make insults.

Yes its logic to risk my life for = nothing just for saving those dying people in the train and get nothing in return...very logic........
Could you please proofread what you type, because it makes very little sense as English. As for your comment, you do get something in return for others. And emotional (chemical) high.

 

[Tdmasta]

Persol

You said SPECIFICALLY "no reaction its done without another force." and "it needs an external source". Don't now try and claim you didn't. It's sitting right there on the previous page.

Thats when i told you inmediatly the exact phrase :

"no reaction its done without another force."

in words by Newton: "For every action(force) there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Its the 3d law of Newton , please dont go making other posts about something already explained to you, and you actually said that it was wrong in your post, yes your not saying exactly the same words of Newton but its the same law applied ,

Persol

LMAO. PLEASE show me where I said that? Pretty please?

there is :

I know quite well what you mean, and you are wrong. If you disagree, provide a quote that says "all reactions must have an external force" or something similar from a reputable site. You won't find it though.

Persol

I also find it funny that someone who can barely form a sentence is telling an engineer about the laws of physics and that he needs to go back to school.

Engineer? and you forgot and negate that law?... If you are ,then think properly your answers before posting.

Persol

'We just know and understand'... good definition of an emotion.

Its also known that humans at their infance , can act evil or good without much or none experience in the life.

Persol

emotions are fear and pleasure, but that its not related to evil or good

Yes they are, and if you can't see that you haven't experienced much of life.

You cant even see the evil or good how can you say its a physical brain emotion? but as i can see virtually anything that you believe its true for you, affirming that evil its an emotion its your thought, but face it its STILL in research.

Persol

All evidence points to us being a VERY complicated set of reactions. That doens't mean we don't make decisions or have desires.

Research has been done machines lack own will, consequently theyre not beings.

Being : a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently

Persol

I am not minimizing. I am not the one who feels they need to pretend we are more than we are.

Who is actually pretending to think we are more than we are?, in fact every part physical and not physical has not been discovered by us, saying what you said its saying "No more research and discover is needed in the human being its all discovered" yes thats limiting the human being and yourself.

Persol

Well yes, it does. It's been proven in experiments. It has also been proven that people will not help others if it harms their own well being unless they are chemically entwined with that other.

Since thats what we are talking about please provide some links about those interesting experiments.

Persol

Please actually try and address the thread at hand and not over simplify in order to make insults.

But that shouldnt be an insult to you, since you believe your a walking supercomputer without a soul or an external being taking decisions(ie: you).

Persol

Could you please proofread what you type, because it makes very little sense as English. As for your comment, you do get something in return for others. And emotional (chemical) high.

Again post your experiments about evil and good human behaviours.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

About your deep theories Raithere ill need more time to study them, and when i get a conclussion ill post about them.

 

[Persol]

and you forgot and negate that law?
The 3rd law says nothing about external forces being needed. Your entire arguement is based on an external force being needed. The 3rd law in no way supports this. It just says that an equal and opposite reaction is seen. They can BOTH be internal. Feel free to correct me if your argument wasn't meant to be based on an external force being needed, but that is what you typed, and what you haven't supported.

Its also known that humans at their infance , can act evil or good without much or none experience in the life.
Um, and?

Being : a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently
Once again, what's your point? The definition of 'life' could very well apply to computers in the near future as they are capable of performing just as life does. The independently also isn't much of a huge jump. We already have robots that act independently.

Since thats what we are talking about please provide some links about those interesting experiments.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ar...it_is_better_to_give_science_suggests?mode=PF

Would you like to backup: "Its also known that humans at their infance , can act evil or good without much or none experience in the life" and "research has been done machines lack own will".


without a soul or an external being taking decisions(ie: you)
And you feel the need to seperate people from this reality why?


And you don't need to type my name 10 times and waste all that space. It makes replying to you very annoying, on top of trying to decipher what almost passes for english.

 

[Tdmasta]

Persol

The 3rd law says nothing about external forces being needed. Your entire arguement is based on an external force being needed.


For the last time please read posts properly...........


Thats when i told you inmediatly the exact phrase :

"no reaction its done without another force."

AND then i explained you :

Im not talikng about the internal or external components of a reaction, but the force itself its needed for a reaction.

How many times ill need to post that phrase before you understand
persol????.........

Persol

'We just know and understand'... good definition of an emotion.

Thats why i talked about young humans(infance) since its known that they can have acts of evil or good without experience, they just know that evil and good exits, they dont need to live 20 years to know about it.



Persol

Once again, what's your point? The definition of 'life' could very well apply to computers in the near future as they are capable of performing just as life does. The independently also isn't much of a huge jump. We already have robots that act independently.

Robots dont take their own decision yet ,they are based on preprogrammed commands made by US.

Persol

And you don't need to type my name 10 times and waste all that space. It makes replying to you very annoying, on top of trying to decipher what almost passes for english.


Do you have a problem by typing your name with every phrase you make? its
just order, and no, my english can be understanded, as you are talking here to me all the time.

 

[Persol]

How many times ill need to post that phrase before you understand
So, regardless to the fact that it was completely the opposite of what you originally said, why did you bring up that a force is needed for a reaction? This is a 'duh', and has nothing to do with the topic.

Robots dont take their own decision yet(study) they are based on preprogrammed commands made by US.
Your (study) comments are hilarious considering you've been showing your ignorance this entire thread. Robots 'do' make thier own decisions. They are limited by their programming, much as we are limited by our thinking.

Do you have a problem by typing your name with every phrase you make?
Yes, in that it is annoying that i have to scroll my screen to read your post, when you've typed less than a dozen lines.... and then I have to keep scrolling back and forth to reply to you. It's a complete waste of space, as it's obvious who you are talking to.

no, my english can be understanded
Then perhaps it is just your habit of making comments, and then backing down on them when you realize you are wrong. I'm still looking to know why you said "logic(physic) says, a reaction needs and external force to be done, then again what made the big bang" when, as you seem to now admit, a force can be internal.

I'm also waiting for you to backup the comments "Its also known that humans at their infance , can act evil or good without much or none experience in the life" and "research has been done machines lack own will".

 

[Tdmasta]

Persol

why did you bring up that a force is needed for a reaction? This is a 'duh', and has nothing to do with the topic.

Well ..... you just negate that law right here right now.

Persol

Your (study) comments are hilarious considering you've been showing your ignorance this entire thread. Robots 'do' make thier own decisions. They are limited by their programming, much as we are limited by our thinking.

Persol we lack preporgrammed commands, you cant say theyre taking their own decisions since real intelligence, hasnt been discovered.

About your name ... its ok if you dont want it there, but its needed when talking about multiple persons commentaries.

 

[Persol]

Seems you added this as I was replying:
Thats why i talked about young humans(infance) since its known that they can have acts of evil or good without experience, they just know that evil and good exits, they dont need to live 20 years to know about it.
Once again, this is a sign of emotion. Babies also smile and cry without 20 years to know about it. It is a set of chemical reactions which are 'built in'. Regardless, I'd like to know how you know infants can act 'evil or good' and that it isn't driven by the same thing which makes them hungry... chemicals.

 

[Persol]

Well ..... you just negate that law right here right now.
TELL ME WHERE I SAID THE 3RD LAWS WAS WRONG. You keep claiming I negated it, when I did not. If I did, you'd simply be able to go to the previous post and copy and paste. I said that an external force is not needed, and is still true. This in no way goes against the 3rd law.

 

[Tdmasta]

Persol

TELL ME WHERE I SAID THE 3RD LAWS WAS WRONG

YOU SAID IT since saying that another force its not needed for a reaction its negating IT!! also note :

Persol

why did you bring up that a force is needed for a reaction? This is a 'duh', and has nothing to do with the topic.


3rd law : "For every action(force) there is an equal and opposite reaction.

You see?

And please stop insisting that i claimed an external force , as the law, since next to it i explained you that i was talking about the Force itself!

 

[Persol]

You: and logic(physic) says , a reaction needs and external force to be done
Me: A reaction does not require an external force. It can just as well be internal.

Now where did a I say a force is not needed? I said an EXTERNAL force is not needed. These are two very different things.

At the same time, you have failed to explain why you want to make a big deal out of a reaction needing a driving force, when it could very well be an internal force.