When do you get a soul? & related questions.

[Cris]

Lg,

As for the means of verifying it, there are certainly details on how to go about it. As for all knowledge based claims however, persons who lie outside the prescriptive descriptions don't meet with a whole lot of success.

It’s unproven you mean and offers no known method to establish rational belief.

Well a glove on a bench cannot do nearly as much as a glove on someone's hand.

A glove is inanimate, it is an optional accessory.

Of course when the glove is in action, we might reference it as the "the glove is doing A, B, C", but actually it is commonly understood that the hand is.

Yes, the glove plays no active role.

Similarly, when we say "the body is doing A, B, C", it is commonly understood that they are doing it in an "alive" state and hence the whole soul thing comes in to play.

This doesn’t follow from the earlier statements. The best I can gather is that the soul is an inanimate optional accessory. Your analogy doesn’t support your point.

“ A dead body is fundamentally different to a live version. ”

sure
in ways fundamentally inaccessible to empirical investigation

The qualification is irrelevant. Dead and alive bodies are fundamentally different. You agree.

“ It is the same distinction to a flashlight being turned off or on. ”

not really because you can empirically establish what a flashlight requires in order to come to the "on" stage, and what is specifically happening in the "off" stage.
This is why no great philosophical discourses are required when we turn a light switch on or off.
This is clearly not the case when life turns "off"

No it is almost identical. The flashlight requires electrons to flow to function. The body needs blood to flow to stay alive. To turn off the flashlight simply interrupt the electron flow. To kill a person; stop the heart (i.e. the source of bloodflow). No soul is needed.

If life could be turned on and off like a light switch, what you are saying would make sense. Offering some sort of excuse why it is not possible, even in a controlled environment, simply means that the phenomena is not controlled and remains unapproachable by standard empirical means.

But a person can be switched off and on, and it occurs daily. Hearts stop frequently and require resuscitation. No soul is needed.

In the absence of any empirical data to suggest exactly what is happening when life turns "off", or what life requires in order to remain "on", its not clear how you are offering anything less "magical".

What is magical about bloodflow and metabolism? These are well understood. And do not require any magical souls to be present.

 

[Cris]

stranger,

Somehow, I thought this thread wasn't about whether there are souls.

Hmm, sorry.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
As for the means of verifying it, there are certainly details on how to go about it. As for all knowledge based claims however, persons who lie outside the prescriptive descriptions don't meet with a whole lot of success.
”
It’s unproven you mean and offers no known method to establish rational belief.

No

I mean that like all claims of knowledge it is thoroughly dependent on the prescriptive descriptions upon which it rests.
“

Well a glove on a bench cannot do nearly as much as a glove on someone's hand.
”
A glove is inanimate, it is an optional accessory.

bingo

“
Of course when the glove is in action, we might reference it as the "the glove is doing A, B, C", but actually it is commonly understood that the hand is.
”
Yes, the glove plays no active role.

yes
much like a dead body

“
Similarly, when we say "the body is doing A, B, C", it is commonly understood that they are doing it in an "alive" state and hence the whole soul thing comes in to play.
”
This doesn’t follow from the earlier statements. The best I can gather is that the soul is an inanimate optional accessory. Your analogy doesn’t support your point.

I'm not sure where you got derailed

A dead body is remarkably similar to a handless glove.
“

“ A dead body is fundamentally different to a live version. ”

sure
in ways fundamentally inaccessible to empirical investigation
”
The qualification is irrelevant.

The problem is that no amount of empirical qualification can make the matter accessible. IOW unlike you, I am not required to discredit the prescriptive requirements that surround empiricism in order to conclude that it is inaccessible to empiricism.

Dead and alive bodies are fundamentally different. You agree.

certainly

much like a glove is fundamentally different from a glove with a hand in it

“
“ It is the same distinction to a flashlight being turned off or on. ”

not really because you can empirically establish what a flashlight requires in order to come to the "on" stage, and what is specifically happening in the "off" stage.
This is why no great philosophical discourses are required when we turn a light switch on or off.
This is clearly not the case when life turns "off"
”
No it is almost identical. The flashlight requires electrons to flow to function. The body needs blood to flow to stay alive.

If this was the case, all that is required to keep a person alive is the flow of blood.

This hypothesis is proven wrong on a daily basis in hospitals all around the world.

To turn off the flashlight simply interrupt the electron flow. To kill a person; stop the heart (i.e. the source of bloodflow). No soul is needed.

Similarly you can say that all that is required to turn off a light bulb is to drop a heavy weight on top of it. No need to discuss electrons.

IOW you miss the point that there is a detail about blood flow and heart beat since these things can be engineered even in a dead person to no avail.

“
If life could be turned on and off like a light switch, what you are saying would make sense. Offering some sort of excuse why it is not possible, even in a controlled environment, simply means that the phenomena is not controlled and remains unapproachable by standard empirical means.
”
But a person can be switched off and on, and it occurs daily. Hearts stop frequently and require resuscitation. No soul is needed.

Once again, this hypothesis is proven false on a daily basis in hospitals all over the world.

“
In the absence of any empirical data to suggest exactly what is happening when life turns "off", or what life requires in order to remain "on", its not clear how you are offering anything less "magical".
”
What is magical about bloodflow and metabolism?

When you claim that these are the essential requirements for life.

These are well understood. And do not require any magical souls to be present.

What is not understood is the relationship they play in sustaining life.
If a dead person can have their heart pump and fresh blood filter through their body all to no avail, there is some "magical" element evading the controlled environment.

 

[Cris]

Lg,

I'm not sure where you got derailed

LOL – ahh I see, you were offering the hand as the soul and the glove as the body.

A dead body is remarkably similar to a handless glove.

No it isn’t. The body starts out alive. It comes from other life. The body is never inanimate and never needs assistance in the form of a soul or anything similar.

To return to the thread topic – a soul never enters a body because no soul is needed. Life is never started; it is continuous and has been so from the beginning of life on the planet. There is no interruption where a soul needs to insert itself.

The problem is that no amount of empirical qualification can make the matter accessible. IOW unlike you, I am not required to discredit the prescriptive requirements that surround empiricism in order to conclude that it is inaccessible to empiricism.

Actually I have no idea what you are talking about.

If this was the case, all that is required to keep a person alive is the flow of blood.

Yup, assuming the body is healthy.

This hypothesis is proven wrong on a daily basis in hospitals all around the world.

Really, what are healthy people doing in hospitals? Note that a flashlight won’t work either if parts of it are damaged.

Similarly you can say that all that is required to turn off a light bulb is to drop a heavy weight on top of it. No need to discuss electrons.

Sure that works as well. Any method that stops the electrons flowing through a functional flashlight has the same ending.

IOW you miss the point that there is a detail about blood flow and heart beat since these things can be engineered even in a dead person to no avail.

Has to be an intact and otherwise functional person.

What is not understood is the relationship they play in sustaining life.
If a dead person can have their heart pump and fresh blood filter through their body all to no avail, there is some "magical" element evading the controlled environment.

Yes the body is broken. In the same way it is pointless pumping electrons through a flashlight if the bulb has blown. No magic necessary.

 

[Dinosaur]

Light Gigantic: The following might be a reasonable point of view.

As for the issue of saving the baby, that seems to be more tied to the principle that justice is meant for the protection of the weak .... since vocal protests are not something usually associated with those of us living in the womb.

However, it is not the theological basis for the Catholic Church advocating (perhaps requiring) that the mother be sacrificed for the child when a doctor cannot save both during a difficult child birth. My remark was based on the Catholic theology.

 

[Enmos]

lg,

I know that is your particular perspective but it doesn't explain what a soul does or what it contributes to life. It still seems to be a void entity.

Perhaps it's like an Id-tag

 

[lightgigantic]

No it isn’t. The body starts out alive. It comes from other life. The body is never inanimate and never needs assistance in the form of a soul or anything similar.

Nevertheless the body is remarkably similar to the glove in the sense that it can display an "active" and "inactive" mode

To return to the thread topic – a soul never enters a body because no soul is needed. Life is never started; it is continuous and has been so from the beginning of life on the planet. There is no interruption where a soul needs to insert itself.

This says absolutely nothing about the phenomena of death however

Actually I have no idea what you are talking about.

Quite simply I have no need to reconstruct empiricism to discredit your claim that life requires a reductionist paradigm ..... unlike your need to reconstruct transcendental paradigms in order to make them subservient to reductionist paradigms.

Yup, assuming the body is healthy.

I see

SO there is some mysterious third agency that can disrupt a beating heart and blood flow

Really, what are healthy people doing in hospitals? Note that a flashlight won’t work either if parts of it are damaged.

Unhealthy people are still alive ... which is kind of dissimilar to a broken flashlight that won't work.

Sure that works as well. Any method that stops the electrons flowing through a functional flashlight has the same ending.

Sure
Much like the absence of a soul leads to a host of biological issues like blood that won't flow and a heart that won't beat.

Has to be an intact and otherwise functional person.

Once again, even healthy people are functional

 

[Cris]

Lg,

Nevertheless the body is remarkably similar to the glove in the sense that it can display an "active" and "inactive" mode

No it isn’t, the body is never inactive until it dies.

This says absolutely nothing about the phenomena of death however

You mean the absence of blood flowing through an otherwise functional person? What’s the problem? The issue seems simple enough.

“ Actually I have no idea what you are talking about. ”

Quite simply I have no need to reconstruct empiricism to discredit your claim that life requires a reductionist paradigm ..... unlike your need to reconstruct transcendental paradigms in order to make them subservient to reductionist paradigms.

Right! That cleared up nothing. Doesn’t seem at all relevant to the discussion.

I see

SO there is some mysterious third agency that can disrupt a beating heart and blood flow

Mysterious? A bullet will do fine, or an accident, or a disease, etc. But you know this, surely?

Unhealthy people are still alive ... which is kind of dissimilar to a broken flashlight that won't work.

More like a flashlight with poor connections, e.g. unhealthy. Electrons are flowing though, just as blood is flowing for the unhealthy people, although perhaps not for very long if they are very unhealthy. Perhaps it is worth making the distinction between a functional person as opposed to a dead one.

“ Sure that works as well. Any method that stops the electrons flowing through a functional flashlight has the same ending. ”

Sure
Much like the absence of a soul leads to a host of biological issues like blood that won't flow and a heart that won't beat.

Nonsense, a bullet through the heart that kills the person has nothing to do with a soul. Why would biological issues that stop blood flow be seen as any different?

 

[Sarkus]

Much like the absence of a soul leads to a host of biological issues like blood that won't flow and a heart that won't beat.

I've always wondered why "Loss of soul" is never used by a Coroner as cause of death. :shrug:
Would also save the vast expense of post-mortems.

Unless of course there is a material reason why a soul would leave a body... which once again would relegate the "soul" merely to another word describing the material process of life.

But then we already have one of those... "life".

 

[Hapsburg]

So? Are we not allowed to use different words for the same physical phenomena?

 

[Sarkus]

Of course you can... but I find that for physical phenomena one should probably not use a word that is predominantly understood to describe a non-physical phenomena. Or for that matter one that describes a different physical phenomena. Unless you deliberately aim for confusion and ambiguity, or do so through failure of logic.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

When you ever go to a James Brown concert , you always got soul.

*************
M*W: You are correct, sir! This is proof of soul!

 

[lightgigantic]

Lg,

No it isn’t, the body is never inactive until it dies.

much like a glove is never inactive until it is taken off the hand

You mean the absence of blood flowing through an otherwise functional person? What’s the problem? The issue seems simple enough.

Kind of makes you wonder why doctors facing impeding issues of mortality simply don't make arrangements for maintaining heartbeat and blood flow and forever relegate the issue of death to ancient history .....

Right! That cleared up nothing. Doesn’t seem at all relevant to the discussion.

for as long as you refrain from contextualizing theistic paradigms, sure.

Mysterious? A bullet will do fine, or an accident, or a disease, etc. But you know this, surely?

Spill the beans

As soon as you tell us what the essential requirement for a healthy body is (or what it precisely has that distinguishes it from an "unhealthy" one) we can apply this the world over and no one need ever die again.

More like a flashlight with poor connections, e.g. unhealthy. Electrons are flowing though, just as blood is flowing for the unhealthy people, although perhaps not for very long if they are very unhealthy. Perhaps it is worth making the distinction between a functional person as opposed to a dead one.

so just as poor connections is the precise empirical phenomena that can be addressed to remedy the problem of a faulty flashlight, what is it exactly that an unhealthy possesses that grants them their status.
P.S. - there's literally megalitres of blood out there to remedy any blood flow problems, so what gives?

Nonsense, a bullet through the heart that kills the person has nothing to do with a soul.

Much like a brick on a light bulb effectively reduces the need for any advanced discussion of electrons

Why would biological issues that stop blood flow be seen as any different?

Perhaps your simple explanations of the relationship between blood flow and life are suitable for primary school children. In reality however, a dialysis machine and a pace maker are certainly no insurance policy against death (in fact they more than likely herald its appearance)
The circulatory system has more pending issues of research (and mystery) than light bulb circuits.

 

[lightgigantic]

I've always wondered why "Loss of soul" is never used by a Coroner as cause of death. :shrug:

If no one has lost their life, they probably wouldn't have a real need to appear on a coroner's table

:shrug:

Would also save the vast expense of post-mortems.

If living people were also subject to coroner reports post mortems could easily become a lucrative profession for many thousands of people

Unless of course there is a material reason why a soul would leave a body...

If you really want to send the idea of "soul" to the trashcan, you need to provide the material reason for life to continue to exist in a body

which once again would relegate the "soul" merely to another word describing the material process of life.

we could test your hypothesis by applying this (mysterious) material element to a dead person and bring them back to life

But then we already have one of those... "life".

and materially speaking, life possesses precisely "what" that the lifeless don't?

 

[Cris]

Lg,

much like a glove is never inactive until it is taken off the hand

No comparison. The body has no dualist supporting component, or requires one.

Kind of makes you wonder why doctors facing impeding issues of mortality simply don't make arrangements for maintaining heartbeat and blood flow and forever relegate the issue of death to ancient history .....

That is what they do, they even have special mobile units that help stimulate the heart in emergencies. Unfortunately, as you well know, the body is very fragile and there is an enormous number of bodily defects and external influences that can cause the heart to stop or for the body to become mortally disfunctional (i.e. broken).

“ Mysterious? A bullet will do fine, or an accident, or a disease, etc. But you know this, surely? ”

Spill the beans

Huh? Like a bullet fired from a gun. Do you need pictures as well?

As soon as you tell us what the essential requirement for a healthy body is (or what it precisely has that distinguishes it from an "unhealthy" one) we can apply this the world over and no one need ever die again.

Why? Do you not know when you are sick or healthy? Healthy can be defined as the state when all critical bodily components are functioning within normal tolerances.

so just as poor connections is the precise empirical phenomena that can be addressed to remedy the problem of a faulty flashlight, what is it exactly that an unhealthy possesses that grants them their status.
P.S. - there's literally megalitres of blood out there to remedy any blood flow problems, so what gives?

Whatever medical issue has developed that would prevent critical components from functioning within normal tolerances.

Perhaps your simple explanations of the relationship between blood flow and life are suitable for primary school children. In reality however, a dialysis machine and a pace maker are certainly no insurance policy against death (in fact they more than likely herald its appearance)
The circulatory system has more pending issues of research (and mystery) than light bulb circuits.

Any analogy taken too far will always fail, that’s why it is an analogy and not the actual scenario. But I think you have let yourself get lost in the analogy.

The essential point is that a living person depends on a constant flow of nutrients and energy flowing to all cells for the body to maintain a living state. If that flow is stopped, interrupted for an excessive period, or prevented from reaching critical components, e.g. brain, liver, kidneys, etc, then the body is likely to cease normal functioning (will die). The bodily components are sensitive to rapid decay if the flow is interrupted for too long and that will prevent them from responding if the flow is resumed, if possible. E.g. the brain is especially sensitive to rapid decay and will not respond to a new blood flow if it has been too long without. The fact that we can artificially create a blood flow may be irrelevant if the components can no longer react to it.

You want to maintain that it is a soul-like entity that maintains each cell in a healthy state, but we can see from the case of a bullet to the heart the person will die whether such souls are present or not. I.e. the cause of death is the cessation of blood flow. The presence or absence of souls becomes irrelevant. If the souls are indeed responsible for life then why does the person die when shot?

 

[Cris]

lg,

If you really want to send the idea of "soul" to the trashcan, you need to provide the material reason for life to continue to exist in a body

A continual supply of nutrients and energy to functional cells.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

But what of your perspective, how would a soul maintain healthy cells? You ask for exactness from us but what of your own claims? How does a soul function to maintain life?

 

[lightgigantic]

Lg,

No comparison. The body has no dualist supporting component, or requires one.

The huge gaps in the reductionist view of consciousness tends to indicate otherwise

That is what they do, ....

which begs the question why we still experience death

Huh? Like a bullet fired from a gun. Do you need pictures as well?

just like dropping a brick on a lightbulb closes the discussion on electrons, huh?

Why? Do you not know when you are sick or healthy? Healthy can be defined as the state when all critical bodily components are functioning within normal tolerances.

Falling back on a qualitative model certainly isn't helping your argument during this critical stage

Whatever medical issue has developed that would prevent critical components from functioning within normal tolerances.

yet it can neither prevent death nor reinvest it in something that is dead so the reductionist theory of consciousness remains just that

Any analogy taken too far will always fail, that’s why it is an analogy and not the actual scenario. But I think you have let yourself get lost in the analogy.

The analogy simply fails since electronics can be explained in a reductionist paradigm whereas consciousness cannot

The essential point is that a living person depends on a constant flow of nutrients and energy flowing to all cells for the body to maintain a living state.

The point is that despite making such an arrangement, death still occurs. There are other elements that the controlled environment cannot factor in.

If that flow is stopped, interrupted for an excessive period, or prevented from reaching critical components, e.g. brain, liver, kidneys, etc, then the body is likely to cease normal functioning (will die).

despite maintaining such connections, death still occurs

The bodily components are sensitive to rapid decay if the flow is interrupted for too long and that will prevent them from responding if the flow is resumed, if possible. E.g. the brain is especially sensitive to rapid decay and will not respond to a new blood flow if it has been too long without. The fact that we can artificially create a blood flow may be irrelevant if the components can no longer react to it.

the fact that artificial flow can be created and death can still occur means that there are more issues aside from mere blood flow

You want to maintain that it is a soul-like entity that maintains each cell in a healthy state, but we can see from the case of a bullet to the heart the person will die whether such souls are present or not.

What we do see however is that all the requirements for blood flow, etc can be met and we can still say with 100% confidence that death will occur.

I.e. the cause of death is the cessation of blood flow.

A brief sojourn into the world of circulatory research reveals that it is not nearly quite so simple.
Your ideas of life and its requirements are reminiscent of pre twentieth century understandings of the cell.

The presence or absence of souls becomes irrelevant. If the souls are indeed responsible for life then why does the person die when shot?

That's kind of like asking that if hands do indeed animate gloves, why do gloves get replaced when they get damaged.

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

A continual supply of nutrients and energy to functional cells.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

kind of begs the q why death can still occur with the provision of nutrients and energy.

Check out what researchers in the field of the circulatory system for further details.

But what of your perspective, how would a soul maintain healthy cells? You ask for exactness from us but what of your own claims? How does a soul function to maintain life?

There is no dichotomy.

The soul is life

 

[Cris]

LG,

kind of begs the q why death can still occur with the provision of nutrients and energy.

You mean like a bullet to the heart that stops the flow of nutrients and energy.

Check out what researchers in the field of the circulatory system for further details.

Irrelevant. Why don’t you answer the bullet question first? If souls are present why does the bullet to the heart stop life?

“ But what of your perspective, how would a soul maintain healthy cells? You ask for exactness from us but what of your own claims? How does a soul function to maintain life? ”

There is no dichotomy.

The soul is life

That is simply a very stupid answer. It is like the small child when asked an awkward question answers – because……

Not good enough.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

You mean like a bullet to the heart that stops the flow of nutrients and energy.

No

I mean like that even after assembling all that is determined to be the nutritional requirements of the body death still occurs

Irrelevant. Why don’t you answer the bullet question first?

At a certain point I think you have to bring your points of view into line with what is actually understood about the circulatory system.

If souls are present why does the bullet to the heart stop life?

Again, which is kind of like asking that if a hand is actually animating a glove, why are damaged gloves replaced?

:shrug:

That is simply a very stupid answer.

It bears a connection to the nature of the question

It is like the small child when asked an awkward question answers – because……

On the contrary, asking how the light of a fire creates a fire is absurd

Not good enough.

If one is convinced that a dichotomy exists where there is none no amount of empirical research will solve that problem