When do you get a soul? & related questions.

[lightgigantic]

You seem to be confusing the arguments here.
The scientific method is a means of gaining knowledge.

which means it operates in a specific manner

Belief in a "soul" or any other thing that is non-material is a matter of rationality.

belief in a soul doesn't change the manner that empiricism operates any more than a disbelief in a soul
:shrug:

Current knowledge can take us only so far.
Noone is making claims of future discoveries of knowledge - so your post-dated rain cheques comments are irrelevant.

So you agree that post-dated rain cheques have no place in the (gredible) representation of empiricism?

However, we can take existing knowledge and reach rational conclusions. But please note that being currently rational does not mean it is correct, or incorrect, only rational based on existing knowledge.

I'm still not clear where you stand on

If you think there is some element that death takes away that cannot be materially replicated you are subscribing to something else other than material reductionism

IOW the rational implications of a reductionist world view is that death can be over-ridden by material replication.

Side stepping it by trying to preempt my position on the subject doesn't clarify yours.

The rational conclusion, given the existing knowledge, is that nothing "non-material" is needed to explain the workings of the universe.

a rational conclusion is always based on premises

In this case, the premises for your argument are lodged in material reductionism (so its more a case of "if/then")

It is irrational to take the existing knowledge - knowing that there is more to be discovered - and to conclude that there must be "non-material" things.

sure

that's why there is the argument that there is a means and way to transcendental knowledge outside of diametrical supposition (or if you're savvy with eastern philosophy, that's why there are other pramanas - or authorities of knowledge - aside from abhava - or non-existence )

If I see a person enter a house (and that is the only knowledge I have of the situation) I can reach the conclusion that there is a person inside the house... I haven't seen them leave, but they might have. But rationally I conclude that they are still in there.

What I don't do is reach the conclusion that a dragon now dwells inside the house. There might be - but it is not a rational conclusion based on the knowledge currently held.

Hence rationality is inherently related to experience ..... so it speaks more of subjectivity than any ontological absolute (IOW, ironically, you take the same tact that you criticize when you say "the "non-material" doesn't exist" ..... it might be true to say you have no experience of it .... whether your experience is sufficient to contextualize the opinions of all others is a subject of debate ....)

So enough with the claims of post-dated cheques - it is an irrelevancy.
I am not making absolute claims that "souls" do not exist - only that they are an irrational conclusion.

So I guess I can now take the italics out of my question to you

why would you think that an issue of replication is beyond the material reductionist paradigm (aside from the infamous "because we don't have the technology yet") ....... unless of course you are subscribing to something other than material reductionism

 

[lightgigantic]

You ignorance is not proof of your claim.

and your inability to clarify your opinion within any body of any anecdoted work doesn't help you any either ....

Yep, under normal circumstances the body dies in stages.

I guess that must make death a pretty unique phenomena ..... since our common experience is that effects happen after a cause
:m:

 

[Sarkus]

So you agree that post-dated rain cheques have no place in the (gredible) representation of empiricism?

I'm saying your comments on post-dated rain cheques are a red-herring and irrelevant.

I'm still not clear where you stand on
If you think there is some element that death takes away that cannot be materially replicated you are subscribing to something else other than material reductionism

IOW the rational implications of a reductionist world view is that death can be over-ridden by material replication.

In theory you are correct. However there are practical limitations to what can be replicated. Scientific endeavours are striving to reduce those limitations, but they still exist nonetheless.
But practical limitations is not evidence of, nor in any way a rational argument for, something non-material.
It is a rational argument for "we do not know yet" rather than jumping on something to bridge the gap.

a rational conclusion is always based on premises

In this case, the premises for your argument are lodged in material reductionism (so its more a case of "if/then")

And we're still waiting for evidence (i.e. knowledge) of something that is non-material.

that's why there is the argument that there is a means and way to transcendental knowledge outside of diametrical supposition (or if you're savvy with eastern philosophy, that's why there are other pramanas - or authorities of knowledge - aside from abhava - or non-existence )

But it is a fallacious argument given that the only "knowledge" it reaches is that which one is required to believe in the first instance in order to achieve that knowledge. "Believe to believe". "Believe in God and he will reveal himself" etc.

Hence rationality is inherently related to experience ..... so it speaks more of subjectivity than any ontological absolute (IOW, ironically, you take the same tact that you criticize when you say "the "non-material" doesn't exist" ..... it might be true to say you have no experience of it .... whether your experience is sufficient to contextualize the opinions of all others is a subject of debate ....)

Experience IS a material interaction - and you have not yet demonstrated, nor provided a theory, as to how non-material can interact with material - without first discarding the laws of physics, or begging the question.

why would you think that an issue of replication is beyond the material reductionist paradigm (aside from the infamous "because we don't have the technology yet") ....... unless of course you are subscribing to something other than material reductionism

As stated, it's a matter of practical ability over theory. Hence the infamous "because we don't have the technology yet".

If you feel that this makes science uncredible and part of why you are so willing to bridge the gap with the "non-material" then you are not being rational.

 

[wynn]

The material is established fact for whom?

I see you suspect that the material doesn't exist. Please find a brick wall and continuously bang your head against it. When you become unconscious you can be sure the wall is very material. Whilst I will be unable to encouarge all of the 6 billion people in the world to do the same thing I am quite sure they would reach the same conclusion.

You were joking, right?

If the material would be an established fact, then doctors, researchers and investigators of various kinds (from nutritionists to crime scene investigators to historians), counselors and many more would have very little work.

In practice, in each specific case, the material is a fact that yet needs to be established.
For example, if a particular disease in a particular patient would be an "established fact", then there would be no need to run tests and figure out what the precise diagnosis is. But the everyday reality of treating people who have pains and other health ailments says otherwise.

"The material is an established fact" is a theoretical proposition, but each specific application of this proposition takes more or less work - so in this sense, the material is something that yet needs to be established as fact.

 

[Sarkus]

If the material would be an established fact, then doctors, researchers and investigators of various kinds (from nutritionists to crime scene investigators to historians), counselors and many more would have very little work.

In practice, in each specific case, the material is a fact that yet needs to be established.
For example, if a particular disease in a particular patient would be an "established fact", then there would be no need to run tests and figure out what the precise diagnosis is. But the everyday reality of treating people who have pains and other health ailments says otherwise.

"The material is an established fact" is a theoretical proposition, but each specific application of this proposition takes more or less work - so in this sense, the material is something that yet needs to be established as fact.

lol!!
You are joking, right??

Matter exists.
This is fact.
Only the nature of the matter requires investigation.


You are confusing investigations into the nature of the material with investigations of whether or not it is material or non-material.

The former is what everyone you mention does.
The latter is left for those trying to demonstrate the existence of "soul".


Certainly one could claim the existence of "non-material" things to be a theory / hypothesis / concept... but if so they are unscientific due to unfalsifiability.

 

[Saquist]

I am an atheist who is curious rather than looking for an argument. I intend to resist urges to make posts disagreeing with points of view expressed here. I do not always manage to resist temptation.

There was a recent news item relating to Catholic Church attitudes relating to abortion. The Pope was quoted as claiming that the Catholic Church had no opinion about when a human being received a soul.

The article caused me to wonder about the theist position on various related issues.

• When does god give a soul to a human being ? Do other religions have a position on this question ?
  
  
• Might god decide to not give a soul to some individuals? For example: A baby born with a brain lacking the frontal cortex.
  
  
• Does god give souls to any animals such as chimpanzees, dogs, squirrels ? If not: Could he confer a soul on an animal?
  
  
• If science managed to clone a human being, would the clone have a soul?
  
  
• Similar to the previous question: If a scientist managed to construct a viable human being (a la Doctor Frankenstein) would it have a soul? The answer to this question might be different from the same question about a clone.
  
  
• If science managed to build a Star Trek transporter, would the soul be reconstructed along with the body or would it travel independently of the transporter technology ? Perhaps it would be lost ?
  
  
• The Star Trek transporter was capable of making multiple copies of a human being. If such a device made a copy, would god provide an additional soul? Would the two copies share the same soul? Would the copy not have a soul?

BTW: I do not believe that science will ever be capable of building a Star Trek transporter. Those who want to take issue with this opinion, please start a thread in one of the science-oriented forums.

While writing the above, a thought occurred to me about the Catholic position on when a soul is conferred. The Catholic Church directs that in the event of serious problems during child birth, the baby be saved if a choice must be made. With modern medical technology, this is a very trivial issue: A choice is hardly ever required.

I think the emphasis on saving the baby rather than the mother is based on the concept of original sin. The baby has never been baptized to erase the burden of original sin, condemning the soul to hell or purgatory or some such punishment. To be consistent, the Catholic Church should adopt the view that the soul is conferred during the birth process. Otherwise, the proper sacrament (baptism, I think) could be performed prior to labor to erase (forgive?) the original sin in the event that the baby died before being baptized.

According to the ancient Hebrews from which Judeo-Christians beliefs are rooted from...

Soul or ne'phesh (Hebrew) means litterall; that which breathes. signifying an animated being and is applicable equally to nonhuman beings. (animals)

According to the new Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) Vol. XIII pp. 449,450
"It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being."

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564
"The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture."

Biblically:
a.The soul dies.
b.Animals are souls.
c.The end of man and animal is the same.
d. When the man dies the thoughts perish
e. The words immortal and soul never appear together or in reference to human beings to one another anywhere in the either the Aramaic or Christian Greek.

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm saying your comments on post-dated rain cheques are a red-herring and irrelevant.

perhaps I might be inclined to agree with you ... except that you play the "post dated rain cheque" in your very next paragraph.

In theory you are correct. However there are practical limitations to what can be replicated. Scientific endeavours are striving to reduce those limitations, but they still exist nonetheless.

Post dated rain cheques have no place in establishing the credibility of empirical claims.

True or False?

But practical limitations is not evidence of, nor in any way a rational argument for, something non-material.

You don't say.

That's why it is evidenced by means outside of empiricism.

It is a rational argument for "we do not know yet" rather than jumping on something to bridge the gap.

sure

for as long as one accepts empiricism as having a monopoly on all knowable claims.

And we're still waiting for evidence (i.e. knowledge) of something that is non-material.

Do you see the thick-headedness of the claim "An examination with the mind and senses has not revealed anything beyond the mind and senses. Therefore nothing exists beyond the mind and senses"?

But it is a fallacious argument given that the only "knowledge" it reaches is that which one is required to believe in the first instance in order to achieve that knowledge. "Believe to believe". "Believe in God and he will reveal himself" etc.

All pedagogical models are initiated at the point of faith.
If you don't agree, feel free to indicate one that doesn't.

Experience IS a material interaction - and you have not yet demonstrated, nor provided a theory, as to how non-material can interact with material - without first discarding the laws of physics, or begging the question.

Experience is far from being reduced to physics.
If you disagree, please explain (solely within the language of physics) why a mother crocodile, with jaws that are capable of snapping a buffalo's bone, cradles her eggs in her mouth and helps them hatch by gently rubbing them.

NB - anything that is not peer reviewed and empirical in your explanation can be rejected at the onset

As stated, it's a matter of practical ability over theory. Hence the infamous "because we don't have the technology yet".

I look forward to getting a T or F

If you feel that this makes science uncredible and part of why you are so willing to bridge the gap with the "non-material" then you are not being rational.

It doesn't make science non-credible.
Its simply how science does and doesn't operate.

If it was otherwise, a person could receive a nobel prize for something they haven't even achieved yet
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Only the nature of the matter requires investigation.

If only the nature of matter would be so easy to investigate ... especially given the norm that any finding must be falsifiable ...

I wonder what, for example, crime scene investigators, lawyers and victims think about the demand for falsifiability ...

You are confusing investigations into the nature of the material with investigations of whether or not it is material or non-material.

The former is what everyone you mention does.
The latter is left for those trying to demonstrate the existence of "soul".

I think this is a false dichotomy.

At the onset of an investigation, we don't know what our findings will be. So when we set out to investigate something, it is not yet clear whether the results of investigation will reveal that our object of investigation is about the nature of the material or something else.

Unless of course we have defined at the onset in what range (whether in the range of "nature of the material" or in the range of "material vs. non-material") we will look for and accept results.
In which case, it is only fair that we admit that we have set ourselves such limitations in advance.

Certainly one could claim the existence of "non-material" things to be a theory / hypothesis / concept... but if so they are unscientific due to unfalsifiability.

So?

 

[wynn]

But it is a fallacious argument given that the only "knowledge" it reaches is that which one is required to believe in the first instance in order to achieve that knowledge. "Believe to believe". "Believe in God and he will reveal himself" etc.

Your reasoning seems to presume that knowledge of God cannot go beyond faith and expectation; that when it comes to knowledge of God, expectation and realization/experience are the same.

Even just in principle, to presume that expectation and realization/experience (of anything) are the same, is to presume omniscience.

Sure, there is a considerable element of psychological safety in presuming that expectation and realization will be the same (or that realization will be better than expectation). People do that all the time, especially now in holiday season when they go on vacations.


I have some expectation of what a particular dish will taste. But once I prepare it and eat it, this has always been different than what I expected it to be.

 

[Sarkus]

perhaps I might be inclined to agree with you ... except that you play the "post dated rain cheque" in your very next paragraph.

On issues of rationality, yes - but you are trying to apply them to actual claims.

That's why it is evidenced by means outside of empiricism.

Yet you can not produce any such evidence. :shrug:

All pedagogical models are initiated at the point of faith.
If you don't agree, feel free to indicate one that doesn't.

Faith as in "subconscious assessment of probability based on previous evidence" rather than blind-faith, sure. So, for your pedagogical model - where is the previous evidence?

Experience is far from being reduced to physics.
If you disagree, please explain (solely within the language of physics) why a mother crocodile, with jaws that are capable of snapping a buffalo's bone, cradles her eggs in her mouth and helps them hatch by gently rubbing them.

False dilemma, I'm afraid LG, as you seem to be under the misconception that if I can't provide what you require then I must be wrong.

It doesn't make science non-credible.

Then why suggest that it raises issues on the credibility of science?

 

[Sarkus]

If only the nature of matter would be so easy to investigate ... especially given the norm that any finding must be falsifiable ...

I wonder what, for example, crime scene investigators, lawyers and victims think about the demand for falsifiability ...

Fallacious.
Those people only need to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" to a court of law. This is very different from science.

At the onset of an investigation, we don't know what our findings will be. So when we set out to investigate something, it is not yet clear whether the results of investigation will reveal that our object of investigation is about the nature of the material or something else.

Experience tends to provide us with assumptions.

Unless of course we have defined at the onset in what range (whether in the range of "nature of the material" or in the range of "material vs. non-material") we will look for and accept results.
In which case, it is only fair that we admit that we have set ourselves such limitations in advance.

Wow - every time I hear of court cases, the defense lawyer is always playing the "God did it", or the "it was a non-material thing" card. And then the prosecutor always comes back with "But your Honour, we set ourselves the limitations of dealing only with matter, not with non-matter!"

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
perhaps I might be inclined to agree with you ... except that you play the "post dated rain cheque" in your very next paragraph.
”
On issues of rationality, yes - but you are trying to apply them to actual claims.

and you're not?

“
That's why it is evidenced by means outside of empiricism.
”
Yet you can not produce any such evidence.

If one falls short of the methodology, how do you propose one evidences it to another?

(IOW any half reasonable examination of evidence begins at the point of "what is the subject being investigated" followed by "what are the means of investigating it" .... and finally .... "what is the evidence".)

“
All pedagogical models are initiated at the point of faith.
If you don't agree, feel free to indicate one that doesn't.
”
Faith as in "subconscious assessment of probability based on previous evidence" rather than blind-faith, sure. So, for your pedagogical model - where is the previous evidence?

no living entity is without previous experience
no living entity can begin to learn anything without approaching an issue of faith ( or "subconscious assessment of probability based on previous evidence", if you prefer)

To ridicule a claim of knowledge simply because it involves an element of such faith is to ridicule the learning process
:shrug:

“
Experience is far from being reduced to physics.
If you disagree, please explain (solely within the language of physics) why a mother crocodile, with jaws that are capable of snapping a buffalo's bone, cradles her eggs in her mouth and helps them hatch by gently rubbing them.
”
False dilemma, I'm afraid LG, as you seem to be under the misconception that if I can't provide what you require then I must be wrong.

On the contrary, you made the claim

Experience IS a material interaction (with the further detail that physics is the language of reality)

I'm just explaining the extent of the task you have set yourself ....

“
It doesn't make science non-credible.
”
Then why suggest that it raises issues on the credibility of science?

Its your addition to the process of science which lacks credibility.

Empiricism has a particular methodology which distinguishes itself from post dated rain cheques, correlation = causation and the like)

If it was otherwise, a person could receive a nobel prize for something they haven't even achieved yet

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=- -=-

So

AOO + HA = T

-=- -=-

 

[swarm]

belief in a soul doesn't change

Being unable to distinguish fantasy from fact degrades your ability to reason effectively.

If you think there is some element that death takes away that cannot be materially replicated you are subscribing to something else other than material reductionism

Actually that is a false dilemma. You can be a materialist without being a material reductionist. In other words everything has a material basis, but not everything which comes of that can be explained interms of that material basis. For example, the meaning of a letter is not carried in a description of its atomic structure even though the letter is only composed of atoms.

IOW the rational implications of a reductionist world view is that death can be over-ridden by material replication.

You really ought to at least have a clue about material reductionism before trying to pull crap out of your ass like that. There actually are legitimate issues with material reductionism but you are just polluting the dialog.

a rational conclusion is always based on premises

No a formal logical conclusion is based on premises. Rationality is more general and can be based on other things as well, such as observation.

Hence rationality is inherently related to experience

Everything is inherantly related to experience.

"the "non-material" doesn't exist"

Hence the term "non-material."

 

[swarm]

and ...

Whatever.

I guess that must make death a pretty unique phenomena

not particularly.

since our common experience is that effects happen after a cause

Got a mouse in your pocket?

Death by thermal nuclear device is fairly instantaneous.

Death by heart failure is a cascade of events which if reversed soon enough, can be recovered from because it takes a person several minutes to actually expire.

The heart stops, oxygen in the local blood supply is exhausted, the nerves release compounds at first to try and protect themselves, this stage lasts about 6 min, then the nerves go into a hyperactive state and fairly quickly burn themselves out. The rest of the body cells continue to die as they run out of oxygen. Most of them will begin self destructing as well as the cells around them die creating a cascade effect.

This can go on for quite some time before some organs are irrecoverable, resulting in an unfortunate gray area where the body can be revived but the brain has already destroyed itself. Eventually though even the rest of the body is dead, the cells release enzymes and oxidizing agents which break themselves down and no amount of reviving can help.

This is the basic structure for most normal deaths, though on occasion the steps get shuffled. Sepsis is when a bacteria triggers the self destruct cascade and the cells of the body self destruct first.

 

[lightgigantic]

Death by thermal nuclear device is fairly instantaneous.

Death by heart failure is a cascade of events which if reversed soon enough, can be recovered from because it takes a person several minutes to actually expire.

whether it is slowly or quickly, the moment that distinguishes death from life remains evasive to the reductionist paradigm.

If it was otherwise, the wiki page you referenced for my edification wouldn't have a sub-category dealing with problems of definition.

The heart stops, oxygen in the local blood supply is exhausted, the nerves release compounds at first to try and protect themselves, this stage lasts about 6 min, then the nerves go into a hyperactive state and fairly quickly burn themselves out. The rest of the body cells continue to die as they run out of oxygen. Most of them will begin self destructing as well as the cells around them die creating a cascade effect.

This can go on for quite some time before some organs are irrecoverable, resulting in an unfortunate gray area where the body can be revived but the brain has already destroyed itself. Eventually though even the rest of the body is dead, the cells release enzymes and oxidizing agents which break themselves down and no amount of reviving can help.

This is the basic structure for most normal deaths, though on occasion the steps get shuffled. Sepsis is when a bacteria triggers the self destruct cascade and the cells of the body self destruct first.

Do you want me to explain why all this misses the point or do you want to read the wiki page about death?

 

[lightgigantic]

Being unable to distinguish fantasy from fact degrades your ability to reason effectively.

belief in a soul doesn't change the manner that empiricism operates any more than a disbelief in a soul

( ... just as editing my responses down to different forms doesn't change the manner that empiricism does or doesn't function)
:shrug:

Actually that is a false dilemma. You can be a materialist without being a material reductionist. In other words everything has a material basis, but not everything which comes of that can be explained interms of that material basis. For example, the meaning of a letter is not carried in a description of its atomic structure even though the letter is only composed of atoms.

then one would be subscribing to the notion that the fundamentals of our abstract thought (ie the mind) is not materially reducible (and hence one wouldn't be a material reductionist)

No a formal logical conclusion is based on premises. Rationality is more general and can be based on other things as well, such as observation.

duh

thus observation would be one of the premises

Everything is inherantly related to experience.

issues ensue however when you extrapolate your experience as sufficient to contextualize the experience of all others .......

Hence the term "non-material."

I take it you missed the implications of me placing it in quotation marks .....

 

[Sarkus]

then one would be subscribing to the notion that the fundamentals of our abstract thought (ie the mind) is not materially reducible (and hence one wouldn't be a material reductionist)

Quick question, LG, as you seem to be keen to argue against material reductionism... who in this thread has actually confirmed that they are a material reductionist?
And please support your answer with a link / quote to their confirmation, please.

 

[lightgigantic]

Quick question, LG, as you seem to be keen to argue against material reductionism... who in this thread has actually confirmed that they are a material reductionist?

Cris does in an obvious fashion

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2301159&postcount=227

Others, like yourself, tend to be a bit more indirect
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2309342&postcount=305

But actually, as it pertains to this thread, it gets back to an issue with whether the phenomena of life being materially reducible also holds that death is materially reducible.

I think it was swarm who kicked up a stink about this somewhere earlier on.