I wasn't aware there was a shortage of oxegyn (except perhaps in NYC)
the christian soul...
- Thread starter cpt.scruffy
- Start date
then what are the information filtration processes of a rock?
i used to think that if there was a soul,
it would be the pilot of the brain in itself,
and if something in the brain fucked up, or if a body mechanism fucked up,
the soul cannot control it properly.
the issue that leads me to doubt this, however, is the fact that the more i look into the science of the body and how we behave, the more i learn that disproves something about it.
what was previously said about it... proven false.
the idea of the soul was provided by someone who made it up with presumptions.
unless you follow the word of god.
if there is something else behind strict biology, i wouldn't call it a soul either.
that again, just seems to presumptious to me. i believe that if there is some sort of force behind the living, then it is a result of an explanation of reason.
a reason within limits, excepting that limits are beyond what we know now.
this force may not be living, but may even be a dimensional imprint from our life; just bullshit things up.
if it seems plausible that i left a dimensional imprint in time, which leads to an image that seems like a spirit or ghost, that would shut down the idea of a soul? especially if the ghost has the idea of "i" in it, but remains in that area until god knows what, and just disappears into atoms.
the idea of its being plausible, but all the same given the knowledge that i just bullshitted that, and could keep on rolling with information...
makes me think that the soul is bullshit too.
it would be the pilot of the brain in itself,
and if something in the brain fucked up, or if a body mechanism fucked up,
the soul cannot control it properly.
the issue that leads me to doubt this, however, is the fact that the more i look into the science of the body and how we behave, the more i learn that disproves something about it.
what was previously said about it... proven false.
the idea of the soul was provided by someone who made it up with presumptions.
unless you follow the word of god.
if there is something else behind strict biology, i wouldn't call it a soul either.
that again, just seems to presumptious to me. i believe that if there is some sort of force behind the living, then it is a result of an explanation of reason.
a reason within limits, excepting that limits are beyond what we know now.
this force may not be living, but may even be a dimensional imprint from our life; just bullshit things up.
if it seems plausible that i left a dimensional imprint in time, which leads to an image that seems like a spirit or ghost, that would shut down the idea of a soul? especially if the ghost has the idea of "i" in it, but remains in that area until god knows what, and just disappears into atoms.
the idea of its being plausible, but all the same given the knowledge that i just bullshitted that, and could keep on rolling with information...
makes me think that the soul is bullshit too.
hrm, from a human perspective?
strictly environment.
if i'm going to move somewhere, i need to know where objects are.
or perhaps, a place of a potential seating place, etc.
what use of the rock may i have for it?
may i have to watch out for it, if i have to run?
pardon the language. 
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
No they are not. It is like the difference between a "living house" and a "dead house," i.e. a disorganized pile of bricks. In a dead human the disorganization is simply too fine at first to observe with our senses. But tissues are beginning to lose their cellular integrity from lack of oxygen and, most critically, the synapses in the brain have irretrievably lost their polarity after a few minutes without oxygen. In other words, the thoughts, memories, instincts and character are gone: everything that makes a person not just a person but a specific person, instead of a hunk of DNA. The dead body (not a "dead person") lacks the key elements of organic structure that differentiates it from a living person.
To me, a person's soul is simply his personality separate from all input and reference. Take a human mind, cut of its 5 senses, and erase it's memory (cerebellum too). There will still remain a part of the mind that is responsible for your basic instincts, drives and preferences. That's my definiton of the soul.
Note: My definition is still based on material components of the brain.
Note: My definition is still based on material components of the brain.
Well this in interesting argument...
The atheistic can use the neural-correlate argument by which neural processes directly correlate to memory, experiences, etc....to equate the mind, soul, brain as the samething.
However, the theist can mix Quantum Mechanics into it, claiming that there must be something independant of matter behind the brain because of the results of the double-slit experiment, in other words the cause cannot be the brain made of matter, because it is in superposition until observed (so the observer isn't made of matter).
The theist can also argue that neurologists have yet to understand consciousness...but thats not really a good argument
The theist can also argue
The atheistic can use the neural-correlate argument by which neural processes directly correlate to memory, experiences, etc....to equate the mind, soul, brain as the samething.
However, the theist can mix Quantum Mechanics into it, claiming that there must be something independant of matter behind the brain because of the results of the double-slit experiment, in other words the cause cannot be the brain made of matter, because it is in superposition until observed (so the observer isn't made of matter).
The theist can also argue that neurologists have yet to understand consciousness...but thats not really a good argument
The theist can also argue
neither does a car engine, leave the car, when it stops working.
when a car is dead, no amount of drivers are going to get it working.
so a driver is irrelevant, unless everything is functioning.
the driver[key] is only needed for the initial spark, much like your mum and dad, once the car has been started provided its fed and looked after it will keep working until it wears out.
Only one way to find out...
the point is that a rock doesn't have consciousness - have you ever heard of anyone exploiting rocks by treating them in inhumane ways?
interesting the actual distinction between a pile of bricks and a house is a living person - like for insatnce if someone asked how was a house built and the reply was 'actually its just a pile of randomly placed bricks" they wouldn't believe them
wrong
a a car mechanic can fix it - but no amount of functioning engines can solve the problem of not having a driver
the driver has the possibility to instigate functionability - without the driver, the car has no possibility of functioning
therefore you see that life comes from life and not dull matter, much like cars move because of sentient intelligence and not a well maintained engine (the engine is necessary but not sufficient - the driver is both necessary and sufficient)
rubbish you do talks some rot, please try and show you have at least an ounce of intelligence.
not a right off, he cant.
we're not talking about functioning engines, dead ones, yes. drivers are irrelevant.
with the help of a key, just like your mum needed your dad to instigate you.
life is formed from life, but the spark that original ignited it is another story at the moment.
however if the engine of a car was infact a brain, you could teach it to run by itself, without the need of a driver, this is why human babies are not born as adults.
You keep using the same old tired argument.
Following your argument, water is just the same bag of jolliness as a mixture of two parts gaseous Hydrogen to one part gaseous Oxygen (by number of molecules).
And if you're dying of thirst - just breath in a lungful of air - it contains both Hydrogen and Oxygen! You should be just dandy!
What's missing in this scenario?
Are the two (Water on one side and the gasses on the other) really just the "same bag of jolliness"?
What's missing?
Is graphite "still the same bag of jolliness" as diamond?
What's missing between the two? Afterall, one is very hard, the other surprisingly soft. But hey! It's all the same bag of jolliness.
WHEN WILL YOU EVER LEARN THAT A DEAD BODY IS NOT THE SAME AS A LIVING BODY ON A CHEMICAL LEVEL.
Cells break down.
Irreversible chemical reactions occur.
Totality of the breakdowns = DEATH.
geeser
“
“
If you ever travel to third world countries you can see first hand how there is no such thing as a written off car (since labour is deemed more cheaper than manufactured goods)
“
“
that infants suffer from a lesser self of context or begin life without consciousness and somehow develop it later by dint of the brain or something?
“
and displays of ad homs do justice?
“
why not?
If you ever travel to third world countries you can see first hand how there is no such thing as a written off car (since labour is deemed more cheaper than manufactured goods)
“
the point is that a driver, especially if he is a mechanically astute, can take a car from its status of disrepair to moving locomotion and that no number of mechanically sound vehicles or their constitutent parts can induce locomotion in a driverless vehicle
not necessarily - people steal cars at every second without keys - another example of something that is no sufficient I'm afraid
but they need to be alive to be successful
you brought it up with the mother/father thing? My point is that dull matter cannot act independant of consciousness - two people uniting to produce a child is evidence for this, not against it
“
a dead person also has a brain - what prevents you from teaching them?
its not clear what argument you are making?
that infants suffer from a lesser self of context or begin life without consciousness and somehow develop it later by dint of the brain or something?
if something can be constructed out of its base properties, you have eveything you need - similarly to say that life is material begs the q why life does not form when every material requirement for its existence is met and why life ceases in the presenceof such a fully equipped environment
yes - for some living entities that is a possibility
what is the chemical difference?
cells are not chemicals
then the question is "why" since you advocate that life is essentially dull matter to begin with - what chemicals does a living person have that a dead person doesn't? Why can't dead persons be revived or persons expectant of death be saved by applying these chemicals?
so since everyone knows they will die, why don't they keep a stock pile of living person chemicals on hand to avoid this scenario?
then please tell what is the biological evidence of this driver - it certainly doesn't appear to be revealed by reductionist theories of molecules, neurons and electrons - unless of course you want to attribute the fairy tale status to science (commonly known as sci-fi, and a boundary that is frequently traversed on site like this)
it's a partial driver.
there's no doubt behind that.
i mean, the simple case of a reflex to pain is a clear and concise example of that.
in addition, the nature of dna is biological evidence.
stem cells in the bone marrow?
there's another one.
what else, blood...
the leukocytes are the the full-blown eukaryotes of blood's buffy coat layer.
they attack foreign objects. and the type of leukocytes vary depending on the foreign material. much of their actions have nothing to do with our personality, but they act on their own terms.
in terms of personality-driving properties... an error in the dna, that creates an issue with the body, which leads to properties of our personality, behaviour, and everything that may seem to be the soul, but in reality is the effect on our brain to adapt.
of course, a theist may argue that the soul is adapting itself, as it's the pilot of the body, but can't quite control what happens, hence adapation.
but i think the biology of us is far too mechanical.
maybe i wasn't too clear on what you meant though. but the body certainly does have a drive for the us.