When do you get a soul? & related questions.

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

IF after death, you find you are living on as a soul yet see no evidence of gods, there is no purpose due to lack of gods???

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

IF we find proof of god(s), that wouldn't mean there are souls.
IF we find proof of souls, that wouldn't mean there are gods.

 

[Cris]

But if there are no souls what would we care if gods existed? Without the ability to achieve an afterlife the power of a god to grant heaven or hell, for example, becomes meaningless.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

IF there are gods, that wouldn't mean there's heaven & hell.
IF there are gods & heaven & hell, that wouldn't mean gods are sane or benevolent.

 

[Cris]

Lg,

This doesn't prove how consciousness and life are mutually exclusive, much less that consciousness is contingent on it

We do not observe consciousness independent of life. We do observe life independent of consciousness, e.g. plant life and single celled organisms. Consciousness depends upon life.

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.

I really don’t know what you mean here. What do you mean by continuation? What do you mean by controlled experiment?

On the contrary, you need to bring your opinions into line with scientific progress of the last 150 years.

Specifically in what respect? The need to keep the heart alive to keep the body alive has been known since man arrived on the planet; nothing significant has changed in that regard for all that time and not so in the past 150 years either. A heart pump of some type still remains an essential component for a body to remain alive. Or do you know of a case where someone has lived without such a pump?

 

[lightgigantic]

Lg,

We do not observe consciousness independent of life. We do observe life independent of consciousness, e.g. plant life and single celled organisms. Consciousness depends upon life.

I'm not sure what body of work you are referencing to suggest that these things don't have consciousness

I really don’t know what you mean here. What do you mean by continuation?

means you have an idea about the requirements for life to exist but something breaks that continuity
IOW what you indicate as the essential environment for life still leaves plenty of elbow room for death.

What do you mean by controlled experiment?

meaning the environment in which the investigation is carried out

Specifically in what respect? The need to keep the heart alive to keep the body alive has been known since man arrived on the planet; nothing significant has changed in that regard for all that time and not so in the past 150 years either. A heart pump of some type still remains an essential component for a body to remain alive. Or do you know of a case where someone has lived without such a pump?

Fine

Tell us how to keep the heart alive and we will see if death can interfere with whatever precise arrangement you dictate.

After it fails (sorry to preempt the conclusion) we can unpack it with results garnered from investigation of the circulatory system (over the past 150 years) to see roughly where the paper trail ends in the pursuit of life.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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?
”
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.

errrr ... right
Decomposition prevents the re-instatement of life but is not an ultimate cause of death.

“
I'm just indicating what you have to achieve to prove your point if one insists on working out of your knowledge base
”
It is not a matter of proof but one of rational conclusion....

In that case I am just indicating what you have to achieve to rationally conclude your point if one insists on working out of your values.

Furthermore you are the one postulating the existence of something... not me.

On the contrary, you are pushing to the hilt the notion that life is materially reducible.
Get back to us when you have that one figured ....

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.

Please take the lead by showing us how life is a material process.

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.

The delightful thing about tentative arguments is that they have the tendency to attack the speaker.

“
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.
”
So you think doctors merely guess when a person dies?

No
I said quite clearly that death leaves an obvious paper trail

“
take a dead body
take a living one

compare the difference
”
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.

meanwhile 5 year olds can understand it while you continue to stubbornly suggest otherwise

“
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.
”
"God of the gaps".

might pay to reread my post
I was talking about your reductionist paradigm.

“
On the contrary, its an answer that even a 5 year old can understand
”
And one day the 5 year old may grow up to realise the logical fallacy it commits.

The only requirement for an argument to be logical is to bring a certain set of values in tow.

For instance if I have the value that all pigs are horses and all horses can fly, the idea of a all pigs being able to fly is logical

in this case, however, to believe that there is some unknown facet of reductionism that makes a dead body non-different from a living one is at stake

:shrug:

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.

meh

or do you lose sight of what is underpinning a claim of logic that distinguishes it from a claim of truth (yet again .....).

“

this is nonsense

We can make a running robot

get back to us when we make a living one ....
”
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'm just pointing out your no-brainer.

You tried to suggest that there is something farcical about suggesting there is something "beyond reductionism" about running.

Given that we can make running robots, I'm not sure how this bears any parallel to the suggestion that there is something beyond reductionism about "life" ..... unless of course we can make a living robot


I'm simply pointing out that we can already make dead things run

 

[Cris]

Lg,

I'm not sure what body of work you are referencing to suggest that these things don't have consciousness

Plants do not posses brains and are hence not aware. What makes you think plants are conscious?

“ I really don’t know what you mean here. What do you mean by continuation? ”

means you have an idea about the requirements for life to exist but something breaks that continuity
IOW what you indicate as the essential environment for life still leaves plenty of elbow room for death.

I still don’t quite understand your point. Maintaining blood flow to the cells in the body is the first requirement to keep a person alive. The test is simple, stop that flow and the person dies. There is a clear dependency demonstrated trillions of times.

“ What do you mean by controlled experiment? ”

meaning the environment in which the investigation is carried out

What environment and what experiment? I don’t understand what you are thinking here.

Tell us how to keep the heart alive and we will see if death can interfere with whatever precise arrangement you dictate.

The heart also provides nutrients and energy to itself, just like all the components in the body.

After it fails (sorry to preempt the conclusion) we can unpack it with results garnered from investigation of the circulatory system (over the past 150 years) to see roughly where the paper trail ends in the pursuit of life.

Still not sure what you are expecting here.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

LG ----- For instance if I have the value that all pigs are horses and all horses can fly, the idea of a all pigs being able to fly is logical


There is nothing logical about it. No matter how you arrange bullshit or attempt to pretty it up, it is yet bullshit.
If you start with bullshit then add more bullshit, you end with bullshit. Nothing more.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

“Originally Posted by Cris
Lg,

We do not observe consciousness independent of life. We do observe life independent of consciousness, e.g. plant life and single celled organisms. Consciousness depends upon life. ”

I'm not sure what body of work you are referencing to suggest that these things don't have consciousness

That's what we get from someone who thinks cameras are conscious & it's my responsibility to prove otherwise.

 

[Cris]

 

[Sarkus]

In that case I am just indicating what you have to achieve to rationally conclude your point if one insists on working out of your values.
...
On the contrary, you are pushing to the hilt the notion that life is materially reducible.

Yep - done. You are just blind to it - and ignore it. It is not a matter of me proving that life is materially reducible but of you proving that it is NOT. The logical and rational conclusion is that it is (ALL evidence points to it).
You go against this, so you prove your claim.
Come back to us when you want another shot at it.

meanwhile 5 year olds can understand it while you continue to stubbornly suggest otherwise

And 5 year olds understand the existence of Santa Claus. Speaks volumes for whom you would converse with for agreement.

might pay to reread my post
I was talking about your reductionist paradigm.

I read it the first time. You are still holding to a god of the gaps.

...unless of course we can make a living robot

And this last statement is indication of the gap. You bridge it with belief in "soul" - whereas rationally one merely says we can not do it yet.

Unless of course you can prove it impossible to create a living robot?



As others have said, your entire argument has now devolved to "You can't prove I'm not right...." when the onus of proof... or even for rational thought... is on you.
It is thus pointless to continue.

 

[lightgigantic]

“Originally Posted by Cris
Lg,

We do not observe consciousness independent of life. We do observe life independent of consciousness, e.g. plant life and single celled organisms. Consciousness depends upon life. ”





That's what we get from someone who thinks cameras are conscious & it's my responsibility to prove otherwise.

... yet for some reasons nurseries find it more financially viable to sell living plants than dead ones (even though dead plants don't have anywhere near as many overheads). Similarly many immunization techniques have a preference for dead viruses than living ones ......

 

[lightgigantic]

-=-

LG ----- For instance if I have the value that all pigs are horses and all horses can fly, the idea of a all pigs being able to fly is logical


There is nothing logical about it. No matter how you arrange bullshit or attempt to pretty it up, it is yet bullshit.
If you start with bullshit then add more bullshit, you end with bullshit. Nothing more.

All a logical argument requires is that the conclusion is a consequence of the premises.
As the flying pig example illustrates, this says nothing about the truth of the matter.

Interestingly enough (as your post illustrates) one's values tends to be the basis for logic.

IOW for as long as you are of the opinion of bullshit, you will see nothing but what your shit stained glasses reveal.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yep - done.

the wiki is waiting to grant you fame and fortune I guess

You are just blind to it - and ignore it. It is not a matter of me proving that life is materially reducible but of you proving that it is NOT.

I don't see why since you're the one insisting that life as we understand it has no requirement for a soul.

And further more I don't see how since you're the one who insists that anything that can be proven lies in the realm of the reductionist paradigm (which automatically leaves life/consciousness out of the picture).

:shrug:

The logical and rational conclusion is that it is (ALL evidence points to it).

On the contrary, there is no evidence that points to it.
The requirement for a successful argument that life is materially reducible is a belief that life is materially reducible.

If you disagree, go write your wiki article to fame or something

:shrug:

And 5 year olds understand the existence of Santa Claus. Speaks volumes for whom you would converse with for agreement.

sorry to hear that a 5 year old has better chances than you of distinguishing something dead from something alive

I read it the first time. You are still holding to a god of the gaps.

clean your glasses

The statement ...

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.

.... doesn't make reference to any god like entity. Its simply explaining where "consciousness/life" sits on the reductionist paradigm

And this last statement is indication of the gap. You bridge it with belief in "soul" - whereas rationally one merely says we can not do it yet.

post dated rain cheques are a poor accompaniment to any scientific process

Unless of course you can prove it impossible to create a living robot?

hehe

I guess I also can't prove you can't jump over your knees for as long as you're determined to keep jumping either ....

 

[Cris]

lg,

yet for some reasons nurseries find it more financially viable to sell living plants than dead ones (even though dead plants don't have anywhere near as many overheads). Similarly many immunization techniques have a preference for dead viruses than living ones ......

And your point is?

 

[Cris]

lg,

All a logical argument requires is that the conclusion is a consequence of the premises.
As the flying pig example illustrates, this says nothing about the truth of the matter.

Interestingly enough (as your post illustrates) one's values tends to be the basis for logic.

Take a class in logic, one of the first things that is taught is the difference between valid logic and bad logic. I.e. the good logician adds the test of - does this make sense.

Most who know how to use logic do not come close to the nonsense your are implying.

 

[glaucon]

LG,

Once again, you're displaying your misunderstanding of logic.

Cris is totally correct here:

Take a class in logic, one of the first things that is taught is the difference between valid logic and bad logic. I.e. the good logician adds the test of - does this make sense.

Most who know how to use logic do not come close to the nonsense your are implying.

All a logical argument requires is that the conclusion is a consequence of the premises.
...

Absolutely incorrect.
What you describe here are the conditions for a valid argument, not the conditions for "a logical argument".

Truth value is a function of formal structure and the truth values of the constituent propositions.

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

Take a class in logic, one of the first things that is taught is the difference between valid logic and bad logic. I.e. the good logician adds the test of - does this make sense.

Most who know how to use logic do not come close to the nonsense your are implying.

On the contrary, the first thing they will teach you in philosophy is that logical things are not necessarily truthful

The concept of logical form is central to logic; it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content.

and truthful things are not necessarily logical

 

[glaucon]

and truthful things are not necessarily logical

Define 'truth' outside of the scope of logic.


..I won't wait up..