There is no heaven when the brain is unconscious

[Write4U]

Neither of us think a soul exists but your premise does not disprove the concept of one is my point.

Ah yes, but when there is a viable scientific alternative to intelligent design, should that not eliminate the super-natural concept and all the baggage that comes with it by default?

How long does it take for absence of proof to become proof of absence?

AFAIK, in 3 millennia there has not been a single verified instance of a universal action that falls outside of known physics.
And any deviation of known physics would be a measurable and reveal the existence of a supernatural causal agency.

 

[Pinball1970]

Ah yes, but when there is a viable scientific alternative to intelligent design, should that not eliminate the super-natural concept and all the baggage that comes with it by default?

No. We are not talking about intelligent design, we are discussing the nature of the soul.
Ask ten theists what the soul actually is (or heaven) and you will get ten different answers.
None of those descriptions will lend itself to physical scientific enquiry.
As you said, 3000 years, ZERO verified physical evidence of a soul, ghost (if people somehow think that is different) heaven, hell or god.
Reason? From the theist argument? Those things are not within the realms of time and space, science, the physical universe, take your pick.

 

[exchemist]

No. We are not talking about intelligent design, we are discussing the nature of the soul.
Ask ten theists what the soul actually is (or heaven) and you will get ten different answers.
None of those descriptions will lend itself to physical scientific enquiry.
As you said, 3000 years, ZERO verified physical evidence of a soul, ghost (if people somehow think that is different) heaven, hell or god.
Reason? From the theist argument? Those things are not within the realms of time and space, science, the physical universe, take your pick.

Surely what this is really about is dualism, isn't it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_dualism. Quite a big subject, still quite widely supported to this day, and by no means merely restricted to religions.

Like you, perhaps, I am personally a sceptic that the distinction is real. But it seems to tax intelligent philosophers, medical men and so forth nonetheless. "What is it like to be a bat" and so forth.

 

[Pinball1970]

Surely what this is really about is dualism, isn't it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_dualism. Quite a big subject, still quite widely supported to this day, and by no means merely restricted to religions.

Like you, perhaps, I am personally a sceptic that the distinction is real. But it seems to tax intelligent philosophers, medical men and so forth nonetheless. "What is it like to be a bat" and so forth.

When the brain of a child changes over time due to age, experience and learning, the mind follows how can it be a separate entity? From that developing, maturing, organic tissue?

When certain parts of the brain are damaged or diseased, the mind, cognition, personality, memories change in very specific ways, in relation to that injury or disease.

For example, Huntington’s Chorea is genetic, a terrible disease with high chance of a diseased parent passing it on to a child.

Loss of mental ability, speech, cognition, muscle control over time eventually leading to dementia and a raft of other complications. Life expectancy is shorter if early onset.

The defective gene has a high number of repeated base pairs in a certain region giving rise the defective protein if above a threshold.

So, one can say with some certainty that a baby with zero symptoms, outwardly normal but with the defective gene, that child’s mind will change with some predictability to a certain state in a certain time frame.

Early and late onset also have some predictability with predictable results.

So, the mind is not only inextricably linked to the brain, which is organic nothing more, but also the genes that build that brain.

Genes of course are also purely organic, comprising of bases pairs arranged in a particular combination and number.

 

[Pinball1970]

should that not eliminate the super-natural concept and all the baggage that comes with it by default?

Yes here we agree. There is another thread on the design argument so I will be brief, Evolution did not eliminate god it eliminated creation evens for life on earth and concept of designed "kinds."

 

[exchemist]

When the brain of a child changes over time due to age, experience and learning, the mind follows how can it be a separate entity? From that developing, maturing, organic tissue?

When certain parts of the brain are damaged or diseased, the mind, cognition, personality, memories change in very specific ways, in relation to that injury or disease.

For example, Huntington’s Chorea is genetic, a terrible disease with high chance of a diseased parent passing it on to a child.

Loss of mental ability, speech, cognition, muscle control over time eventually leading to dementia and a raft of other complications. Life expectancy is shorter if early onset.

The defective gene has a high number of repeated base pairs in a certain region giving rise the defective protein if above a threshold.

So, one can say with some certainty that a baby with zero symptoms, outwardly normal but with the defective gene, that child’s mind will change with some predictability to a certain state in a certain time frame.

Early and late onset also have some predictability with predictable results.

So, the mind is not only inextricably linked to the brain, which is organic nothing more, but also the genes that build that brain.

Genes of course are also purely organic, comprising of bases pairs arranged in a particular combination and number.

Yes, you are preaching to the converted. It seems to me dualism springs from a category error: that of misclassifying consciousness as an entity and applying the noun “mind” to it, when it is really an activity, the activity of the conscious brain.

Nevertheless dualism remains a mainstream philosophical idea, even today, it seems.

 

[Write4U]

The Beginning

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth didn’t have any shape. And it was empty. There was darkness over the surface of the waves.
At that time, the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1 - New International Reader's Version

The Beginning - In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth didn’t have any shape. And it was empty. There was darkness over the surface of the waves. At that time, the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light. God saw...

www.biblegateway.com

IMO, the concepts of Intelligent Design (God's House) and Soul (Spirit) begin here.
Which brings the question:

Does God have a soul?

Nov 21, 2023 — If we view the word soul as the ability to express emotions, then, yes, God has a soul—He is not “soulless” in the sense of having no feeling.

Does God have a soul? | GotQuestions.org

Does God have a soul? If human beings are created in the image of God, and human beings have souls, does that mean God has a soul?

www.gotquestions.org

This suggests a motivated God.
Which brings the question : Why?

But surely the question is "How"?

 

[Pinball1970]

Yes, you are preaching to the converted. It seems to me dualism springs from a category error: that of misclassifying consciousness as an entity and applying the noun “mind” to it, when it is really an activity, the activity of the conscious brain.

Nevertheless dualism remains a mainstream philosophical idea, even today, it seems.

Probably why philosophy is not my thing. I appreciate the ground work, the gifted intellects but not a lot of the subject matter.
One of the greatest ever philosophical debates was between Bohr and Einstein in the 1920s but it was based on empirical evidence.

I'll stop there. Off topic.

 

[exchemist]

Probably why philosophy is not my thing. I appreciate the ground work, the gifted intellects but not a lot of the subject matter.
One of the greatest ever philosophical debates was between Bohr and Einstein in the 1920s but it was based on empirical evidence.

I'll stop there. Off topic.

Well the philosophy of science is pretty essential in the sort of discussions we have on these forums.

I can't count the number of times we've had various cranks or religious people on, who don't understand what a theory is, the reliance on observation, the absence of proof in science, the requirement for theory to be testable and to make good predictions, and so on. It's only one corner of philosophy it is true, but I have no time for people like DrGrasse Tyson who dismiss philosophy as a waste of time. That strikes me as very superficial thinking.

When one tries to explain the scientific point of view to those without familiarity with science, philosophical issues very often come up. I think it pays to have some grasp of the ideas they may have in their heads, for one reason or another.

 

[gmilam]

The Beginning

IMO, the concepts of Intelligent Design (God's House) and Soul (Spirit) begin here.
Which brings the question:

Does God have a soul?

This suggests a motivated God.
Which brings the question : Why?

But surely the question is "How"?

I thought the question was "Where did God come from?".

 

[Write4U]

I thought the question was "Where did God come from?".

No, that was not the question.
But to answer that question, I would argue that without a definition of God, IT shall remain unknowable.
By the rules of science, if you cannot identify the result, you cannot logically fashion a functional process.

And if we use scripture we end up with a circular argument. Perhaps Scripture cannot even be used as evidence of any kind.

God is infinite and immortal? I don't think so. Moreover, evensuch a broad perspective does not answer your question.


p.s. In another thread, I have made a defensible case for an observable function that answers your question. But it isn't religious.

 

[Sarkus]

When certain parts of the brain are damaged or diseased, the mind, cognition, personality, memories change in very specific ways, in relation to that injury or disease.

When you damage a car in specific ways, the driving experience also changes in very specific ways in relation to that damage: flat tyre, hole in the exhaust, loss of wheel, etc.
Does that somehow mean the car and driver are the same thing?

FYI, I'm playing devil's advocate.

My point is that your argument doesn't actually support the lack of any duality, or help understand the nature thereof.

 

[gmilam]

No, that was not the question.
But to answer that question, I would argue that without a definition of God, IT shall remain unknowable.
By the rules of science, if you cannot identify the result, you cannot logically fashion a functional process.

And if we use scripture we end up with a circular argument. Perhaps Scripture cannotevenbe used as evidence of any kind.

God is infinite and immortal? I don't think so. Moreover, evensuch a broad perspective does not answer your question.

It would be my next question. Who designed the designer? The question of God having a soul never entered my mind.

Having said that, I agree that if you don't know what you're looking for then you can't know if you found it.

 

[Sarkus]

But to answer that question, I would argue that without a definition of God, IT shall remain unknowable.

More strictly, without a definition the word is meaningless. while it is true that one can not know about that which is meaningless, one can also not know about things that have meaning.

By the rules of science, if you cannot identify the result, you cannot logically fashion a functional process.

Functional process for what? To achieve the result? To know?
But to give you something to think about... we can not identify the exact value of pi. But we have a functional process to establish as much as we need to know for usefulness.

God is infinite and immortal? I don't think so.

You are of course welcome to your beliefs on the matter.

 

[Write4U]

Does that somehow mean the car and driver are the same thing?

It depends on what does the experiencing, no?

 

[Write4U]

More strictly, without a definition the word is meaningless. I.e. you don't know enough to say that it is unknowable, only that you can't.

That would be true if some people do know the answer. But if no one knows the answer , the subject is unknowable.
Even believers maintain that god is unknowable. It is one of the few religious declarations I agree with.

 

[Sarkus]

It depends on what does the experiencing, no?

In the analogy, it is not the car.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U said:
God is infinite and immortal? I don't think so.

You are of course welcome to your beliefs on the matter.

Oh , I have an alternate view that does meet those criteria. But it is not a motivated individual that created man in his image as depicted in Scripture.

 

[Sarkus]

That would be true if some people do know the answer. But if no one knows the answer , the subject is unknowable.

This is a logical fallacy. Just because noone does know does not mean it is unknowable.
Before we knew the atom existed, was it unknowable, or simply unknown?

Even believers maintain that god is unknowable. It is one of the few religious declarations I agree with.

Some believers maintain god is utterly unknowable, but the vast majority do not, at least not entirely.

Christians, for example, mostly believe god reveals himself through divine revelation, through the bible, for example, making aspects of God knowable (so they believe). Sufficient to have a personal relationship with God, at least.

 

[Write4U]

In the analogy, it is not the car.

I agree, it is the driver. But now imagine an AI driven car. Does the AI experience the results of a flat tire? I should hope so.