Brain vs soul.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2017, 12:01 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 12:38 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  It really is a paradox for me. The only direct experience I have of anything appears to be an unscientific phenomenon that I can't even properly define, and certainly can't test for. I dismiss myself as woo!?

You are woo. We're all woo living in Wooville. All you can do is try to at least be an interesting woo in Wooville.

(16-03-2017 02:44 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Indeed, we're basically discussing the problems of hard solipsism.

Solipsisim is clearly flawed. It requires me to stipulate to a premise that I find neither clear and self-evident nor indisputable. In fact, it is an intrinsically untenable position just not for the reasons most think. "I AM" is intrinsically indefensible.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
16-03-2017, 12:04 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 11:30 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 07:18 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Back to Semantics again?
Wiki:
An observer is one who engages in observation or in watching an experiment.
An Iphone does not of it's own self engage in anything. It does not decide to observe unless it is instructed & programmed to do so.
So no No, an Iphone cannot be self aware based on my definition of Self Awareness.

We keep doing this back & forth & you keep ignoring my counter rebuttals.
If I am wrong how am I to learn if you don't address my counter rebuttals?
Can you at least address this one before jumping to another counter argument.
For the sake of good debating if nothing else.

I'm begging you to take the whip & hit me, but all you keep doing is brandishing it very mildly.

You missed the point. You said everything is "aware" but not everything is "self-aware".

By that line that everything is "aware" an iPhone, is aware.

To you, a rock is "aware" so it's on you prove how you tested the rock or iPhone's awareness.

I would posit that inanimate things cannot be aware -- at all. Self awareness is then irrelevant.

Animals can be aware, but if they are self aware is matter for debate.
You're not questioning the logic of my train of thought are you? Just my choice of words. I have a way of getting around the semantics though.

Give me a word that means "able to be interacted with"

Due to my limited vocabulary I'll call it "interactability" for now. (spell check went off so that's a good sign)

So instead of me saying:
Self Awareness requires an unseen driving force.
I'll say:
Self "Interactability" requires an unseen driving force.

The ability to interact with oneself. A trait specific to life & individuality.
Unless you would have me believe that self "interactability" is the cause of random events that give me the illusion of individuality.

I posit that this ability comes from an unseen force.
If science has already found the source of this ability then my argument is flawed.

So go ahead, debunk the argument. Hopefully the semantics don't get in the way this time
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 12:06 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 12:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 12:38 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  It really is a paradox for me. The only direct experience I have of anything appears to be an unscientific phenomenon that I can't even properly define, and certainly can't test for. I dismiss myself as woo!?

You are woo. We're all woo living in Wooville. All you can do is try to at least be an interesting woo in Wooville.

(16-03-2017 02:44 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Indeed, we're basically discussing the problems of hard solipsism.

Solipsisim is clearly flawed. It requires me to stipulate to a premise that I find neither clear and self-evident nor indisputable. In fact, it is an intrinsically untenable position just not for the reasons most think. "I AM" is intrinsically indefensible.
It's flawed because you can't understand it?
"I am" is a flawed concept.
Try "thoughts are".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 12:31 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 12:04 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 11:30 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  You missed the point. You said everything is "aware" but not everything is "self-aware".

By that line that everything is "aware" an iPhone, is aware.

To you, a rock is "aware" so it's on you prove how you tested the rock or iPhone's awareness.

I would posit that inanimate things cannot be aware -- at all. Self awareness is then irrelevant.

Animals can be aware, but if they are self aware is matter for debate.
You're not questioning the logic of my train of thought are you? Just my choice of words. I have a way of getting around the semantics though.

Give me a word that means "able to be interacted with"

Due to my limited vocabulary I'll call it "interactability" for now. (spell check went off so that's a good sign)

So instead of me saying:
Self Awareness requires an unseen driving force.
I'll say:
Self "Interactability" requires an unseen driving force.

The ability to interact with oneself. A trait specific to life & individuality.
Unless you would have me believe that self "interactability" is the cause of random events that give me the illusion of individuality.

I posit that this ability comes from an unseen force.
If science has already found the source of this ability then my argument is flawed.

So go ahead, debunk the argument. Hopefully the semantics don't get in the way this time

Whether you realize it or not, your word choices betray certain errors in the logical thought process behind your statements. There are many other indicators of this in your writing as well, including sentence structure, the logical functions you choose to apply (when and where you choose to apply those functions along with which you choose)

When called on on these problems you obfuscate and remain thoroughly obtuse.

You demonstrate a certain lack of critical self analysis.

You could likely benefit greatly by some serious introspection AFTER picking up some books and studying logical structures. I think I recommended you read Carl Sagan before, i'll take a moment to do so now. There are many others you could read that would help, but his simple down to earth and fun way of putting it, and the clarity of his works are, in my opinion, near unrivaled.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JesseB's post
16-03-2017, 12:32 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2017 12:48 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 12:06 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Try "thoughts are".

Why? Because you say so? Because you can't understand how they couldn't? Why don't you try proving that. No bullshit disputable premises allowed. Many have tried, all have failed. But why don't you have a go at it anyway. It'll be fun to watch.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 12:38 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 12:04 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 11:30 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  You missed the point. You said everything is "aware" but not everything is "self-aware".

By that line that everything is "aware" an iPhone, is aware.

To you, a rock is "aware" so it's on you prove how you tested the rock or iPhone's awareness.

I would posit that inanimate things cannot be aware -- at all. Self awareness is then irrelevant.

Animals can be aware, but if they are self aware is matter for debate.
You're not questioning the logic of my train of thought are you? Just my choice of words. I have a way of getting around the semantics though.

Give me a word that means "able to be interacted with"

Due to my limited vocabulary I'll call it "interactability" for now. (spell check went off so that's a good sign)

So instead of me saying:
Self Awareness requires an unseen driving force.
I'll say:
Self "Interactability" requires an unseen driving force.

The ability to interact with oneself. A trait specific to life & individuality.
Unless you would have me believe that self "interactability" is the cause of random events that give me the illusion of individuality.

I posit that this ability comes from an unseen force.
If science has already found the source of this ability then my argument is flawed.

So go ahead, debunk the argument. Hopefully the semantics don't get in the way this time

I am questioning your logic and choice of words.

A rock isn't aware. An iPhone isn't aware.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
16-03-2017, 12:52 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2017 12:56 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 12:31 PM)JesseB Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 12:04 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You're not questioning the logic of my train of thought are you? Just my choice of words. I have a way of getting around the semantics though.

Give me a word that means "able to be interacted with"

Due to my limited vocabulary I'll call it "interactability" for now. (spell check went off so that's a good sign)

So instead of me saying:
Self Awareness requires an unseen driving force.
I'll say:
Self "Interactability" requires an unseen driving force.

The ability to interact with oneself. A trait specific to life & individuality.
Unless you would have me believe that self "interactability" is the cause of random events that give me the illusion of individuality.

I posit that this ability comes from an unseen force.
If science has already found the source of this ability then my argument is flawed.

So go ahead, debunk the argument. Hopefully the semantics don't get in the way this time

Whether you realize it or not, your word choices betray certain errors in the logical thought process behind your statements. There are many other indicators of this in your writing as well, including sentence structure, the logical functions you choose to apply (when and where you choose to apply those functions along with which you choose)

When called on on these problems you obfuscate and remain thoroughly obtuse.

You demonstrate a certain lack of critical self analysis.

You could likely benefit greatly by some serious introspection AFTER picking up some books and studying logical structures. I think I recommended you read Carl Sagan before, i'll take a moment to do so now. There are many others you could read that would help, but his simple down to earth and fun way of putting it, and the clarity of his works are, in my opinion, near unrivaled.
The inability to find a word to properly explain the point one is making could be the cause of limited vocabulary, language barrier, a new field of study, an illiterate audience & many other things.
How you correlated this inability to ONLY mean "errors in the logical thought process behind your statements" and totally ignored the other possible causes, shows your opinion seems rather biased, don't you think?

Now I would gladly oblige your bias on the grounds that you have found an error within my logical thought process & associated it to my word choices.

For all you accusations of me being obfuscate and obtuse, you have yet to identify the alleged "errors in the logical thought process" or everything you just said would be nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinion.

Telling someone to go read a book for better introspection after you stated an unsubstantiated opinion about their character is tantamount to telling them "go fuck yourself"

That being said: I noticed you made a spelling error a few posts back, it shows a lack of brain cells, so I advise you to go read the Oxford dictionary.
Fair Enough?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 12:59 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 12:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 12:38 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  It really is a paradox for me. The only direct experience I have of anything appears to be an unscientific phenomenon that I can't even properly define, and certainly can't test for. I dismiss myself as woo!?

You are woo. We're all woo living in Wooville. All you can do is try to at least be an interesting woo in Wooville.

(16-03-2017 02:44 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Indeed, we're basically discussing the problems of hard solipsism.

Solipsisim is clearly flawed. It requires me to stipulate to a premise that I find neither clear and self-evident nor indisputable. In fact, it is an intrinsically untenable position just not for the reasons most think. "I AM" is intrinsically indefensible.

Are you saying that assuming that "I" exist is an unfounded assumption, and solipsism as stated actually assumes too much? I would agree. If I'm positing that "I" am something more than the sum of my body parts and their functions, which I cannot know really exist, that's unfounded.

I think most people assume that if "I" am not existent in the way it feels like I am, I must be existent "somewhere else". I don't agree, that just seems like an assertion.

All I can really think is that "I" am the brain functioning. My experience is some sort of manifestation of this... the brain experiencing itself. After all, "I" never experience anything outside of the brain anyway, I'm just in a VR it creates.

I feel my subjective viewpoint just makes it impossible to see things clearly.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Robvalue's post
16-03-2017, 01:02 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 12:59 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  Are you saying that assuming that "I" exist is an unfounded assumption, and solipsism as stated actually assumes too much?

Yes.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 01:06 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 12:52 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 12:31 PM)JesseB Wrote:  Whether you realize it or not, your word choices betray certain errors in the logical thought process behind your statements. There are many other indicators of this in your writing as well, including sentence structure, the logical functions you choose to apply (when and where you choose to apply those functions along with which you choose)

When called on on these problems you obfuscate and remain thoroughly obtuse.

You demonstrate a certain lack of critical self analysis.

You could likely benefit greatly by some serious introspection AFTER picking up some books and studying logical structures. I think I recommended you read Carl Sagan before, i'll take a moment to do so now. There are many others you could read that would help, but his simple down to earth and fun way of putting it, and the clarity of his works are, in my opinion, near unrivaled.
The inability to find a word to properly explain the point one is making could be the cause of limited vocabulary, language barrier, a new field of study, an illiterate audience & many other things.
How you correlated this inability to ONLY mean "errors in the logical thought process behind your statements" and totally ignored the other possible causes, shows your opinion seems rather biased, don't you think?

Now I would gladly oblige your bias on the grounds that you have found an error within my logical thought process & associated it to my word choices.

For all you accusations of me being obfuscate and obtuse, you have yet to identify the alleged "errors in the logical thought process" or everything you just said would be nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinion.

Telling someone to go read a book for better introspection after you stated an unsubstantiated opinion about their character is tantamount to telling them "go fuck yourself"

That being said: I noticed you made a spelling error a few posts back, it shows a lack of brain cells, so I advise you to go read the Oxford dictionary.
Fair Enough?

Or possibly a reading comprehension issue....

I never said "ONLY" I said its an indicator, one of many different indicators, its not the only one. Or are you simply trying to build up a strawman to fight and obfuscate?

I have said before, I'll say it again. I try not to be the grammar police. All I care about is if you make sense and are reasonably readable (partially cause I didn't hire an editor to go over everything I type and I"m aware of how challenging it can be to edit your own work, especially when there's a potential for emotions to run high, or you're typing quickly, or from a phone, which I sometimes respond from my phone, just saying).

It's called constructive criticism. It was not offered in malice, you respond with unveiled hostility and an inability to look at yourself honestly, and think about what people say to you. I find that pitiable.

Edit^ I'm not obligated to do your self analysis for you. It's less valuable if I point out all the specifics to you. I'm legitimately trying to help you here dude, I'm not attacking you.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JesseB's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: