When do you get a soul? & related questions.

Lg,

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
Click to expand...
You are changing the subject. We are not discussing consciousness.

“ 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
Click to expand...
You asked for a clear definition. You have one. Now you can’t deal with it.

“ 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
Click to expand...
I’ve already explained that.

so the reductionist theory of consciousness remains just that
Click to expand...
Don’t change the subject.

The analogy simply fails since electronics can be explained in a reductionist paradigm whereas consciousness cannot
Click to expand...
We are not discussing consciousness.

“ 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.
Click to expand...
No there isn’t providing you pay attention to the conditions I have already explained.

“ 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
Click to expand...
No there isn’t providing you pay attention to the conditions I have already explained.

“ 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
Click to expand...
Not in this case.

“ 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.
Click to expand...
The heart has been exploded, no blood is flowing, that’s why death occurred.

Stop being evasive and answer the question honestly.

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.
Click to expand...
Not so far as the overwhelming critical factors for life is as I’ve described.

“ 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.
Click to expand...
So a soul doesn’t maintain life then. It is simply a parasite that leaves when its host dies?
 
Cris said:
Lg,

You are changing the subject. We are not discussing consciousness.
Click to expand...
discussing life removed from issues of consciousness is certainly novel

You asked for a clear definition. You have one. Now you can’t deal with it.
Click to expand...
the problem is that the definition you offered is qualitative, so it cannot be dealt with in an empirical manner.

It becomes quantitative when you can explain precisely what all the critical bodily components and what also normal tolerances are.
We are not discussing consciousness.
Click to expand...
if you've ever encountered life that isn't conscious and consciousness that isn't alive, now would be a good time to mention it ....
No there isn’t providing you pay attention to the conditions I have already explained.
Click to expand...
pay all the attention you want
you will still die

:shrug:
Not in this case.
Click to expand...
Not in what case?
Despite all your talk, mortality still has a 100% success rate
The heart has been exploded, no blood is flowing, that’s why death occurred.

Stop being evasive and answer the question honestly.
Click to expand...
I'm not being evasive.
I'm simply discussing the facts.

Most dead people don't have exploded hearts.

The fact is that whatever means you try to reduce as the bare requirements for life to function still have ample room for death to take over.

Anyone who speaks otherwise without 100% confidence is simply not being scientific.


Not so far as the overwhelming critical factors for life is as I’ve described.
Click to expand...

Either you are about 150 years behind in your understanding of the circulatory system or are referencing a basic model of facts for a less informed audience.

So a soul doesn’t maintain life then. It is simply a parasite that leaves when its host dies?
Click to expand...
Just as much as a hand is a parasite of glove's ability to be animate.
(IOW not at all)
Click to expand...
 
lightgigantic said:
If no one has lost their life, they probably wouldn't have a real need to appear on a coroner's table

If living people were also subject to coroner reports post mortems could easily become a lucrative profession for many thousands of people
Click to expand...
Indeed - but since you claim that the loss of a soul leads to biological problems that cause death, it still remains rather amazing that no Coroner puts "loss of soul" as the cause of death.
This is, after all, what you stated - that the loss of a soul leads to death.

It is irrelevant of you to start referring to the cases of living people.

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
Click to expand...
Ah - so you really do claim that "soul" is merely to fill a gap in the existing knowledge. Thanks for admitting.

we could test your hypothesis by applying this (mysterious) material element to a dead person and bring them back to life
...
and materially speaking, life possesses precisely "what" that the lifeless don't?
Click to expand...
Why must the difference be additional matter? "Life" is not the material composition but the way that material moves - the pattern of motion of that material - in a self-sustaining way.
A "dead" person is unable to sustain the necessary motion of the flow of material (e.g. the heart stops due to wear and tear, stopping the necessary flow of blood, causing death).

Further, as you are undoubtedly aware, the chemical bonds in the material of a "dead" person break down rather quickly, thus chemically altering the matter of a "dead" and "living" person such that it becomes too difficult to restart the required necessary flow of material inside the body.


Edit: I see you have finally now stated your case in a far more succint way:
The soul is life
Click to expand...

Now all you need to do is adequately define what "life" is.
And inane answers such as "it is that which separates a living body from a dead one" are not accepted - as this is just circular.

1: What is the difference between a man that is running and a man that is stationary?
2: The running man displays a certain motion.
1: So there is this non-material thing that this running man has?
2: Eh?
1: Well, there's no difference materially from the running man and the stationary man, so the difference must be non-material. We can call this "soul". The running man has a "soul".
2: Hmmm. Actually the difference is merely the way in which the body acts. One has a certain pattern of motion, the other doesn't.
1: Yes, but "the soul is that particular motion". QED the soul exists.
2: But you're just defining the soul as a particular pattern of material motion. We already have a word for that... "running".
1: Yes - but unless you can adequately explain what "running" is, and demonstrate it, I'll stick with it being an unprovable non-material thing bestowed upon the body that turns it from stationary to "running".

The only difference between this above "discussion" and the one regarding your view of the soul, LG, is the current (lack of) understanding of "life" (being a particular pattern of motion of material). Which thus appears to relegate your idea of the "soul" to a god of the gaps.
 
Lg,

if you've ever encountered life that isn't conscious and consciousness that isn't alive, now would be a good time to mention it ....
Click to expand...
Life and consciousness are not the same thing. Consciousness depends on life. For example dead things are not conscious, hence life must come first. I’m concerned only here with life. You state that a soul is life. You cannot show how a soul maintains living cells in a human body. I have explained how cells and hence life are maintained by the constant flow of nutrients and energy. This is well understood by science.

The soul as you claim appears to have no role to play in the maintenance of life. Your claim that a soul is life appears to be a meaningless and baseless assertion. You need to do better to explain how a soul is life and not a simple fantasy.
 
Sarkus said:
Indeed - but since you claim that the loss of a soul leads to biological problems that cause death, it still remains rather amazing that no Coroner puts "loss of soul" as the cause of death.
This is, after all, what you stated - that the loss of a soul leads to death.
Click to expand...
let me put it another way

Do you find it any less amazing that fixing the problems that the coroner attributes to being the cause of death doesn't reinstate life?


It is irrelevant of you to start referring to the cases of living people.
Click to expand...
Just pointing out the problem of your dichotomy
Ah - so you really do claim that "soul" is merely to fill a gap in the existing knowledge. Thanks for admitting.
Click to expand...
No

I'm just indicating what you have to achieve to prove your point if one insists on working out of your knowledge base
Why must the difference be additional matter? "Life" is not the material composition but the way that material moves - the pattern of motion of that material - in a self-sustaining way.


A "dead" person is unable to sustain the necessary motion of the flow of material (e.g. the heart stops due to wear and tear, stopping the necessary flow of blood, causing death).


Further, as you are undoubtedly aware, the chemical bonds in the material of a "dead" person break down rather quickly, thus chemically altering the matter of a "dead" and "living" person such that it becomes too difficult to restart the required necessary flow of material inside the body.
Click to expand...
I understand that is your opinion.
I'm simply pointing out that it is not based in empiricism, since the "pattern of motion of life" is not something perceptible to the controlled experiment, even though the "pattern of death" leaves an obvious paper trail.




Edit: I see you have finally now stated your case in a far more succint way:

Now all you need to do is adequately define what "life" is.
Click to expand...
take a dead body
take a living one

compare the difference

:shrug:

If you're after a reductionist definition you are chasing your tail down the alley of tacit terminology, since "consciousness" is not even on the horizon of such a paradigm.

And inane answers such as "it is that which separates a living body from a dead one" are not accepted - as this is just circular.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, its an answer that even a 5 year old can understand
:shrug:

1: What is the difference between a man that is running and a man that is stationary?
2: The running man displays a certain motion.
1: So there is this non-material thing that this running man has?
2: Eh?
1: Well, there's no difference materially from the running man and the stationary man, so the difference must be non-material. We can call this "soul". The running man has a "soul".
2: Hmmm. Actually the difference is merely the way in which the body acts. One has a certain pattern of motion, the other doesn't.
1: Yes, but "the soul is that particular motion". QED the soul exists.
2: But you're just defining the soul as a particular pattern of material motion. We already have a word for that... "running".
1: Yes - but unless you can adequately explain what "running" is, and demonstrate it, I'll stick with it being an unprovable non-material thing bestowed upon the body that turns it from stationary to "running".

The only difference between this above "discussion" and the one regarding your view of the soul, LG, is the current (lack of) understanding of "life" (being a particular pattern of motion of material). Which thus appears to relegate your idea of the "soul" to a god of the gaps.
Click to expand...

this is nonsense

We can make a running robot

hr33_kick.jpg


get back to us when we make a living one ....
 
Cris said:
Lg,

Life and consciousness are not the same thing. Consciousness depends on life. For example dead things are not conscious, hence life must come first. I’m concerned only here with life.
Click to expand...
This doesn't prove how consciousness and life are mutually exclusive, much less that consciousness is contingent on it
You state that a soul is life. You cannot show how a soul maintains living cells in a human body.
Click to expand...
agreed

in this case, the reductionist paradigm will not be at all useful
I have explained how cells and hence life are maintained by the constant flow of nutrients and energy. This is well understood by science.
Click to expand...
The problem is that those same nutrients and energy do not ensure the continuation of life. This is also well understood by science.
IOW there is something that is evading any controlled experiment that would confirm your opinion.

The soul as you claim appears to have no role to play in the maintenance of life. Your claim that a soul is life appears to be a meaningless and baseless assertion. You need to do better to explain how a soul is life and not a simple fantasy.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, you need to bring your opinions into line with scientific progress of the last 150 years.
 
lightgigantic said:
Do you find it any less amazing that fixing the problems that the coroner attributes to being the cause of death doesn't reinstate life?
Click to expand...
Not at all... due to the chemical and irreversible breakdown of the material body following death.
This is something you conveniently keep omitting.
The coroner determines the cause of death by utilising his understanding of the effects of death on the material human body. Amazingly, the coroner doesn't put "decomposition" down as a cause of death - as this is an effect of death. If he was to fix the cause of death there are still all the effects of death... effects that you always conveniently ignore.

I'm just indicating what you have to achieve to prove your point if one insists on working out of your knowledge base
Click to expand...
It is not a matter of proof but one of rational conclusion....
Furthermore you are the one postulating the existence of something... not me. The onus is on you to support your claim. If the soul is anything more than the material process of life then step up to the plate and give it your best shot. So far you have come up with nothing other than a means of filling a gap, but a gap you can't prove will not be bridged empirically.

I understand that is your opinion.
I'm simply pointing out that it is not based in empiricism, since the "pattern of motion of life" is not something perceptible to the controlled experiment, even though the "pattern of death" leaves an obvious paper trail.
Click to expand...
So you think doctors merely guess when a person dies? Or do you think they go through a series of empirical tests to ascertain whether the person is alive or dead?
We can toss a coin to see if you're currently alive or dead if you want?

take a dead body
take a living one

compare the difference
Click to expand...
The difference has been explained again and again, and why it is not feasible to restart a long-time-dead body... and time and again you fail to understand or deliberately refuse to accept it.

If you're after a reductionist definition you are chasing your tail down the alley of tacit terminology, since "consciousness" is not even on the horizon of such a paradigm.
Click to expand...
"God of the gaps".

On the contrary, its an answer that even a 5 year old can understand
Click to expand...
And one day the 5 year old may grow up to realise the logical fallacy it commits.
Or do you judge all truth values by what a 5-year old understands.
I'm still waiting to see all the bridges made out of Lego.

this is nonsense

We can make a running robot

get back to us when we make a living one ....
Click to expand...
Indeed we can make a running robot. This, coupled with your last statement, confirm that your understanding of "soul" is merely a "god of the gaps".
Unless, of course, you can prove that it will be impossible (not just very difficult but categorically and logically impossible) to create artificial life... a living robot?

You see, you either prove the impossibility or you admit to the current empirical gap you are filling. There is no other alternative.
 
I believe the soul is the sum of a person and when the person dies, the soul lives on in some capacity in some sort of afterlife. I know this is a straw man argument but personally, I can't imagine going through life with no soul, no less living life as an atheist.

I believe the soul inhabits our frontal lobes and our life is spent developing this area of our brain; in other words if you cut out the frontal lobes, that is no longer a person but a mass of flesh. I believe this is a fair argument to make.

I believe we all have a unique soul just as we all have a unique perspective of the universe- that you can't swap souls. And I believe we have one soul and it grows as we age- surely me today is a different person than me 20 years ago.

I believe God's method of evolution makes souls: beings made of the stuff of the universe with brains sufficiently evolved to where they can ponder the self... I believe the notion of being self-aware as the ultimate product of this mechanical universe.

I believe that any living thing with the capacity to reason has the potential to have a soul.
 
At death the brain burns itself out, usually starting within about six minutes. This is why people who are "revived" too late fail to come back. The brain has destroyed itself.

They've been developing anti-excitatory compounds to help prevent this and extend the time before brain damage sets in.
 
jmpet said:
I know this is a straw man argument but personally, I can't imagine going through life with no soul, no less living life as an atheist.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you are honest about being a theist because you lack imagination and reason poorly.
 
I am sorry- when it comes down to it, I cannot logically envision a would without a God in it and can't believe we are all soulless beings... kinda makes living pointless, no?
 
-=-

At least he began each statement with "I believe".


OOPS! I thought he wasn't doing too bad with that but then :

jmpet said:
I am sorry- when it comes down to it, I cannot logically envision a would without a God in it and can't believe we are all soulless beings... kinda makes living pointless, no?
Click to expand...


No. It wouldn't make life pointless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top