Studies say: soul exists.

[Tdmasta]

I think I'm done talking to you. You're making this up as you go along, and are only worried about not being proven wrong. Perhaps you should read through a couple of the previous threads on this topic before you try and participate.

My last comment for today!

MM arent you trying to do the same about your nice arguments and experiments about good and evil being emotional and chemical???

I posted a link about bots will, wich they lack, but if you dont care to read, its your sole decision.....

 

[Persol]

No. This is not 'making it up as I go along'. This is supported by pharmacuticals and other research. Also, unlike you, I haven't been making unsupportable claims and completely contradicting myself.

Your argument has been, "you're wrong... but I can't explain it and can't show you why" You need more than that mate.

 

[Persol]

I posted a link about bots will, wich they lack, but if you dont care to read, its your sole decision.....

Do you have to constantly go back and edit your posts to add comments? I read the link you had. It was a report about things people were advertising at the siggraph conference. It was not about the will/soul of robots.

 

[Tdmasta]

I can tell you about your many contradictions, but im not obssesed with multiposting like you, although ill post your current contradiction.

Persol

No. This is not 'making it up as I go along'. This is supported by pharmacuticals and other research. Also, unlike you, I haven't been making unsupportable claims and completely contradicting myself.

Yea evil and good its supported by pharmaceuticals, yea very supported matey.....

still posting just for saying somthin !?

Persol

Your argument has been, "you're wrong... but I can't explain it and can't show you why" You need more than that mate.

Its not that i want to prove you wrong, in fact i accepted the quantum physics being needed to explain the Big Bang(but it was Raithere), its just that your arguments arent hard to contradict.

Do you have to constantly go back and edit your posts to add comments? I read the link you had. It was a report about things people were advertising at the siggraph conference. It was not about the will/soul of robots.

Err its about bots lacking own will ! read!.


Sry mate ill catch you later.... gotta go.

 

[Persol]

I can tell you about your many contradictions
Hehe, sure you can. You just decided to lie instead?

but im not obssesed with multiposting like you
Not sure what you mean, but I guess you are talking about posting twice in a row. Well, as I've pointed out 3 or 4 times in this thread already it is because I respond to your post and then you go back and change what you said. That's not very honest.

Its not that i want to prove you wrong, in fact i accepted the quantum physics being needed to explain the Big Bang
Well isn't that special... but this thread had nothing to do with the big bang until you brought it up. It also had nothing to do with the equal and opposite reactions until you brought it up for no apparent reason.

If one day you want to actually hold a conversation, and not just talk out your ass while avoiding the subject, visit again.

Edit:
You decided to edit AGAIN?!
Err its about bots lacking own will
No.... it isn't. If anything, it was about the ability to endow these attributes. Notice the key statements:
"development of more capable and autonomous robotic systems was introduced"
"her work and the development of Emotional Artificial Intelligence"

 

[Tdmasta]

Hehe, sure you can. You just decided to lie instead?

i dont need its all your word.

I respond to your post and then you go back and change what you said. That's not very honest.

Im not liying, i just add arguments, talking about your posts that you make every second not like im goin to make a different post for every point you make, so i edit.

If one day you want to actually hold a conversation, and not just talk out your ass while avoiding the subject, visit again.

Like soul wasnt related to God.... , but i dunno who was ever started talkin about God , and notice you are the first one who actually insulted Mr.engineer.

 

[Raithere]

[Are you actually saying that we care about ourselves , just because every human that helped in that moment thought that logic? just for higher rate of survival ie: but i really dont care about anyone just, Survive = more humans.

No, what I'm saying is that cooperation and even altruism is explicable through Evolution and logic. It's not some mysterious and illogical (as you proposed) aspect of behavior that requires the existence of a soul, at least not necessarily so.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Raithere,

Evolution works upon populations not individuals. Thus, if a population has a trait towards altruistic behavior and that trait improves the rate of survival of the population altruism will be selected for.

Could you give an example of how this has worked.?
Or could you give the the details of the mechanics?

That a few individuals sacrifice themselves for the greater good is beneficial for the survival of a species.

So how is this consistent with evolution?

Jan Ardena.

 

[Raithere]

Could you give an example of how this has worked?
Or could you give the the details of the mechanics?

It depends on how many details you want. The concept of the mechanism is fairly simple on the surface. A population contains mostly the same genes (with some amount of variation) therefore any attribute that contributes the overall success of the population is likely to survive within that population.

If you want a more specific example we might look at a case where an uncle looses his life saving his brother’s children. At first glance it might seem that from an Evolutionary perspective that this altruistic behavior makes no sense because the Uncle looses the chance to reproduce. However, the uncle and the brother share most of the same genes (probably including the gene that codes for altruistic behavior), therefore the brother’s children also like include those genes… the Uncle’s trait for altruism survives in his brother’s children.

Conversely, we can look at the family that does not have a gene for altruistic behavior. The house burns down and the uncle does not save the children and they die. The uncle survives to have children of his own but then his house burns down and his brother, lacking any instinct for altruism, just lets the children die. The genes aren’t passed on.

This is a simplified example. It’s unlikely that the coding for altruism is a single gene that is turned on or off but it illustrates the power of natural selection. Overall, a population has a better chance to survive if its members are looking out for each other, even to the point of risking individual survival on occasion. It’s really a rather common sense notion; we have police and firemen for exactly the same reason.

~Raithere

 

[Gravage]

Jan,

It is interesting how because of our different perspectives we do see this issue as opposites. I have the impression that too many people DO think that souls exist, and you see the opposite. No criticism intended here, it was just an observation. And I’m not sure which one of us might be correct.

Yes I agree. No argument on that.

Yes definitely. It is one reason why I support Mind Uploading research where I think what you suggest may actually be possible in the not too distant future.

But as for NDE’s: The problem here is that all the witnesses have all undergone severe trauma to the brain. We know that hallucinogenic drugs can create identical effects. Such drugs primarily alter the functioning of the synapses in the brain. A brain starved of oxygen similarly affects the synapses.

If memory within the brain has been altered by brain trauma, then when the victims recover they will have no way to differentiate between reality and potential hallucinations. They will understandably be totally convinced of their experiences because that is exactly what their memories are telling them.

So any claims for a soul under extreme brain trauma conditions is always going to be highly suspect. A more acceptable claim would be to show the existence of a soul under normal conditions.

But I look forward to the Lancet article.

Thanks for the advanced notice.

Cris

Not only that Cris,but there is an irrefutable proof that there is no life after death:
There is irrefutable proof that there is no life after death-at least not in this known,observable universe:To live after death you would break laws of physics,here is how:Any system(from the simplest to the most complex,it doesn't matter if it's living or dead) works in this way.Let's suppose you have a mobile phone.Every device,organism(both living and dead) and everything else in nature has a system inside itself which keeps its existence,so does the human body.If something is damaged like cell phone(works on the same system like human body does,only difference is human body is much more complex-but human body works on the same principles) you can't turn that on,you must fix it.so,in near-death experiences,where the brain is supposedly shut down,genes are trying to make a communication(that's how our body and anythingelse in nature works) to start life processes again,but in the time everything in body is shut down,genes are mutating(only problem is that this stuff you can't see it on the medical devices which show all other patient's vital functions dead-if genes successfully mutate than we will come back to life,but if the damage is just too big to be impossible for genes to mutate and restart the life than it's all over-we're dead(including all of our memories,all of kinds of emotions and etc.).It's pretty much like when you try to repair car's engine.If you fail,the engine won't start,and the car is "dead",if you turn the engine on,than your car has established connection and communication with its other parts,than you can say "it came back to life" and "had" near-death experience.The same prosegure goes with a cell phone and everything else in nature-so there is zero possbility for that.
That's the irrefutable proof that nothing in nature is eternal,except energy.Everything has a beginning and the end-except the nature and energy.
It has been proven via experiments on the dead people,that dead people's bodies have some sort of radiation.Every human radiates the entire life,and when humans die,it has been tested by the experiments,the radiation within a few days falls to zero,when radiation is zero there is no return to life anymore.

 

[Persol]

I have to disagree with you here Gravage:

There is irrefutable proof that there is no life after death-at least not in this known,observable universe:To live after death you would break laws of physics
Just because something breaks the current laws of physics doesn't mean it is impossible. Especially when that something is by definition in a field which we can not observe... and therefore can't create 'laws of physics' for.

If something is damaged like cell phone(works on the same system like human body does,only difference is human body is much more complex-but human body works on the same principles) you can't turn that on,you must fix it.
This is not anything to do with physics. Furthermore, a soul is considered by most to be the 'operator' of the body. Just because you can't call somebody on your phone doesn't mean you (the operator) doesn't exist. Likewise, just because your soul can't operate your body, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

so,in near-death experiences,where the brain is supposedly shut down,genes are trying to make a communication(that's how our body and anythingelse in nature works)
Well, no... not really.

to start life processes again,but in the time everything in body is shut down,genes are mutating
Yet again, no... and besides the point.

It has been proven via experiments on the dead people,that dead people's bodies have some sort of radiation.
EVERYTHING radiates.... not just bodies.

it has been tested by the experiments,the radiation within a few days falls to zero,when radiation is zero there is no return to life anymore.
No, it doesn't go to zero. It is just very undetectable. Yet again, this doesn't really matter because even rocks and cement radiate. Furthermore, when people claim that the soul exists they talk about something seperate from the body. Proving that the body breaks doesn't prove that the soul also does.

You can't disprove something that by definition can't be detected. You can only disprove the proof.

 

[Gravage]

I have to disagree with you here Gravage:

There is irrefutable proof that there is no life after death-at least not in this known,observable universe:To live after death you would break laws of physics
Just because something breaks the current laws of physics doesn't mean it is impossible. Especially when that something is by definition in a field which we can not observe... and therefore can't create 'laws of physics' for.

Gravage:Yes,but everything live sand dies with an balance and system.you have to have laws to enable this,without laws,it would be impossible to maintain an order and balance.

If something is damaged like cell phone(works on the same system like human body does,only difference is human body is much more complex-but human body works on the same principles) you can't turn that on,you must fix it.
This is not anything to do with physics. Furthermore, a soul is considered by most to be the 'operator' of the body. Just because you can't call somebody on your phone doesn't mean you (the operator) doesn't exist. Likewise, just because your soul can't operate your body, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Gravage:True,but the problem is there is none to pick up the phone,and to establich the communication in our body,it has been proven in scientific studies,that cells are very connected to each other,and one brain will try to repair that damage cell.Your phone example is truly a bad example,since,it has a connection between A source and the B source,it's just matter of someone if he/she is going to pick up the phone,but the connection between A source and the B source is established,otherwise if there was no A or B we wouldn't be able to call each other since the phoneline of the other B source is dead.The only difference in body is that it has self-regenerative system.


so,in near-death experiences,where the brain is supposedly shut down,genes are trying to make a communication(that's how our body and anythingelse in nature works)
Well, no... not really.

Gravageh,yes,they do many researchments show that every time our cells and genes are destroyed they are replaced by the new mutated cells/genes,like it or not.If there was no connection of cells/genes there wouldn't be us!


to start life processes again,but in the time everything in body is shut down,genes are mutating
Yet again, no... and besides the point.

It has been proven via experiments on the dead people,that dead people's bodies have some sort of radiation.
EVERYTHING radiates.... not just bodies.

Gravage:Yes,but everything has a beginning and an end.It has been proven many times in everything,including dead human bodies that doze of radiation is falling to zero,as well as the heat and everything else,than it all becomes entropy.Much like you start the car motor,and that motor has some kind of radiation,but turn off the car's engine,and radiation would fall to zero too,after some short smount of time,the same goes with our bodies.


it has been tested by the experiments,the radiation within a few days falls to zero,when radiation is zero there is no return to life anymore.
No, it doesn't go to zero. It is just very undetectable. Yet again, this doesn't really matter because even rocks and cement radiate. Furthermore, when people claim that the soul exists they talk about something seperate from the body. Proving that the body breaks doesn't prove that the soul also does.

Gravageh,really.But you can't beat something that has been already tested like it or not.This HAS been TESTED,not only by engines,but also in evrything else!

You can't disprove something that by definition can't be detected. You can only disprove the proof.

Oh,really,virtually everything in our bodies has been detected by modern science like it or not.Soul must interact with our body and brain,but that's no case,so there is no soul.

 

[wesmorris]

Oh,really,virtually everything in our bodies has been detected by modern science like it or not.

Perhaps modern science has missed a whole dimensions' worth of stuff (maybe a bunch of them as proposed by uhm.. wait, yeah science (string theory and such)) seeing as how you can't see it, touch it, etc. Perhaps modern science can't detect what it doesn't know is there?

I'm not saying it's necessarily true, but what you're quoting as "modern science" has nothing to do with cutting edge theoretical who knows what, which is gonna be where unificaiton theory comes from, which promises (as of now) to prove things like "compactificated dimensions" in which could lie who knows what eh? The point is that you are wrong because you seem to assume the case is closed and it's obvious to me that it is not.

Soul must interact with our body and brain,but that's no case,so there is no soul.

LOL. That's quite the assumption no? What if for instance you have a component that is created in a compactificated dimension due to the conditions brought about by your brain, and when your body dies the pattern/momentumishness brought about by the experiences of your mind do not cease to exist in that dimension, though their access to the dimensions in which your brain exists is no longer functional?

I'm not saying that's true, that's just a giant what if. I'm sure there are probably others?

Hmm.. You know what, if you want you can consider the case closed but I'd think it'd be reasonable for you to remember that because you think it is so, doesn't mean that it is.

 

[Gravage]

Perhaps modern science has missed a whole dimensions' worth of stuff (maybe a bunch of them as proposed by uhm.. wait, yeah science (string theory and such)) seeing as how you can't see it, touch it, etc. Perhaps modern science can't detect what it doesn't know is there?

I'm not saying it's necessarily true, but what you're quoting as "modern science" has nothing to do with cutting edge theoretical who knows what, which is gonna be where unificaiton theory comes from, which promises (as of now) to prove things like "compactificated dimensions" in which could lie who knows what eh? The point is that you are wrong because you seem to assume the case is closed and it's obvious to me that it is not.

Gravagef course it is,you are making too much fantasies on this.In this universe these are laws of physics,and nothing can change it,dimensions don't have anything to do with it.I have already proved that every human has a beginning and the end.


LOL. That's quite the assumption no? What if for instance you have a component that is created in a compactificated dimension due to the conditions brought about by your brain, and when your body dies the pattern/momentumishness brought about by the experiences of your mind do not cease to exist in that dimension, though their access to the dimensions in which your brain exists is no longer functional?

Gravage:I don't care about other dimensions-and it has to be proven that there are other dimensions,but there is no single proof,only theories.It has been already proven that when you slice apart the piece of your brain,you feel nothing,you are like plant,you don't have memories,you don't have that ego.Studies has shown that,it's about to you to accept it or not,in other dimensions there wouldn't be us,it would be someone else with completely diffferent ego and brain.

I'm not saying that's true, that's just a giant what if. I'm sure there are probably others?

Hmm.. You know what, if you want you can consider the case closed but I'd think it'd be reasonable for you to remember that because you think it is so, doesn't mean that it is.

Yes,but the facts and studies and researchments have shown these.

 

[Persol]

Yes,but the facts and studies and researchments have shown these.

Actually you are dead wrong. We have very little idea what actually causes the brain to work. We have macro theories, but the details are not filled out.

Claiming that 'virtually everything in our body has been detected' is both misleading and ignorant. Your claim is no more supported than the claim that the sould does exist.

 

[wesmorris]

yo persol why you gotta be all reasonable n sit?

 

[Persol]

I have a bad habit of arguing with people who make claims which can't be backed up.

 

[wesmorris]

I have a bad habit of arguing with people who make claims which can't be backed up.

what a bastard.

 

[Raithere]

Perhaps modern science has missed a whole dimensions' worth of stuff (maybe a bunch of them as proposed by uhm.. wait, yeah science (string theory and such)) seeing as how you can't see it, touch it, etc. Perhaps modern science can't detect what it doesn't know is there?

Actually, the whole hyper-dimensionality thing has been seriously twisted in the public mind by the pseudo scientists who promote it as if it were the fairy realm, an alternate plane of existence in which anything might be possible. The additional dimensions proposed in string theory as much a part of this world as the three we are all familiar with. The same rules apply. The hypothetical 'compactified dimensions' are right here but they're so small that they are only noticeable on a quantum level.

~Raithere

P.S. I do, however, agree with you that it's a rather big assumption to consider the case closed.

 

[wesmorris]

Actually, the whole hyper-dimensionality thing has been seriously twisted in the public mind by the pseudo scientists who promote it as if it were the fairy realm, an alternate plane of existence in which anything might be possible.

I understand that, but I'm pretty sure my understanding is not based in fantasy.

The additional dimensions proposed in string theory as much a part of this world as the three we are all familiar with. The same rules apply.

Yup. I don't think I've indicated anything to the contrary.

The hypothetical 'compactified dimensions' are right here but they're so small that they are only noticeable on a quantum level.

Exactly.

P.S. I do, however, agree with you that it's a rather big assumption to consider the case closed.

Have you seen some of my related ramblings on this topic? I only ask because I've pretty well explained how I think the relationship works. I'll try to post a link here if I remember where it was.