Brain vs soul.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2017, 05:01 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 04:19 PM)SYZ Wrote:  Does this guy have a never-ending supply of this sort of meaningless bullshit to draw on?

Yes. He does nothing but make up nonsensical assertions and present them as fact.

Because he's an idiot.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
16-03-2017, 09:59 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2017 10:28 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 04:14 PM)JesseB Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 04:09 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Conflating what idea? I'm not a Theist.
You said "The soul IS not." as if to say I posit what a soul IS.
I don't posit what a Soul IS, I only posit what a Soul DOES.
You used the word "seem" because that's what it appears like to you. It "appeared" as if I am using the word "IS". It's an illusion based on your biases. You are too accustomed debating theists that it's almost impossible for you to debate an atheist.
All I'm stating there is an unseen force that differentiates the living from the dead.
This force is demonstrable, testable & falsifiable just like gravity.
Don't believe me?
Let's ask wiki.

Life:
Life is a characteristic distinguishing physical entities having biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased, or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Everything above tells us what life does & not what it is just like the definition of Gravity.
And.
Just like Gravity it is demonstrable, testable & falsifiable.

You seem to be conflating an idea you like, with reality. (Just so your clear, your "soul is not demonstrable, testable & falsifiable" analogy is full of shit is what I'm saying)


I didn't say you are a Theist, nor did I intend to imply it.

The soul can't do a fucking thing if it doesn't exist. which is the fucking POINT. Zoom right over your head it went.

and that's the idea you're conflating the existence of the soul. It's nothing more than an idea with no basis in reality. Comparing it to gravity is incorrect, for reasons I've stated 4 or 5 times now..... Seriously dude are you reading anything I bother writing? ......

Perhaps you just see whatever you want to see when people type at you, hear what you want to hear when they speak to you.... It would be nice if you could pull it together a bit more though.

(IF you say that the soul is just an idea with no bearing on reality, then I won't challenge you on it. There's nothing wrong with people having an idea they like... I like Harry Potter... I don't try to impose it on the real world though)


wait..... I just noticed your last point.... really dude? Ok this is a waste of fucking time.... You need to go back to school, learn a bit about the scientific method. Otherwise we'll never get fucking anywhere.
The scientific method does not bring us closer to reality.
The scientific method does not posit that the observable world is a representation of reality so why would you use the scientific method to prove a reality?

This is what the scientific method is:
Wiki:
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

Knowledge & Reality are two entirely different concepts, so please stop conflating the two.

Wiki:
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

All knowledge is derived via subjective interpretation, therefore information/knowledge is not a representation of reality.
By the very definition of "Reality" it is impossible for us to possess knowledge about reality. We can only possess knowledge about knowledge.

Having a soul is one of the most fundamental things we CAN know.
Evidence is not required to know a Soul exists.
Science has it's uses but not in Philosophy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 10:00 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
Brian VS Saul??? Blink

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 10:11 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 09:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 04:14 PM)JesseB Wrote:  I didn't say you are a Theist, nor did I intend to imply it.

The soul can't do a fucking thing if it doesn't exist. which is the fucking POINT. Zoom right over your head it went.

and that's the idea you're conflating the existence of the soul. It's nothing more than an idea with no basis in reality. Comparing it to gravity is incorrect, for reasons I've stated 4 or 5 times now..... Seriously dude are you reading anything I bother writing? ......

Perhaps you just see whatever you want to see when people type at you, hear what you want to hear when they speak to you.... It would be nice if you could pull it together a bit more though.

(IF you say that the soul is just an idea with no bearing on reality, then I won't challenge you on it. There's nothing wrong with people having an idea they like... I like Harry Potter... I don't try to impose it on the real world though)


wait..... I just noticed your last point.... really dude? Ok this is a waste of fucking time.... You need to go back to school, learn a bit about the scientific method. Otherwise we'll never get fucking anywhere.
We are talking about the existence of something.
This falls under Philosophy, not science.
The scientific method does not bring us closer to ABSOLUTE truths.
The scientific method does not posit that the observable world is a representation of reality so why would you use the scientific method to prove a reality?
Did I blaspheme your holy book?

This is what the scientific method is:
Wiki:
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

Knowledge & Absolute Truths are two entirely different concepts, so please stop conflating the two.

Absolute truths fall under Philosophical arguments.

Wiki:
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

All knowledge is derived via subjective interpretation, therefore information/knowledge is not a representation of reality.

By the very definition of "Reality" it is impossible for us to possess knowledge about reality. We can only possess knowledge about knowledge.

I know I exist. Therefore my soul exists.
It's that simple.

Having a soul is one of the most fundamental thing we CAN know.
To deny the existence of your soul is to deny knowledge itself.

Your argument fails both at Science and Philosophy. Clearly just pointing out where and why you are wrong isn't going to be enough to get you to think about it. or to see it.

What absolute truth? are you thick?
How can you fit so much wrong in one post?
I'm gonna to relax for a bit, I'll respond to this later, maybe in-between now and then I can think of a way to get something through that thick skull of yours. Anyone else feel like poking at what's so obviously wrong here is welcome.

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
[+] 3 users Like JesseB's post
16-03-2017, 10:38 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 10:11 PM)JesseB Wrote:  How can you fit so much wrong in one post?

As I've mentioned before, fractal wrongness is pretty much the defining trait in any post Shane makes. That and not even wrong, of course; usually, his statements are so blitheringly insane and utterly disconnected from anything even resembling rationality that there isn't anywhere to start when attempting to debunk them.

The only way that Shane could possibly learn anything would be to give up on the notion that he understands anything at all, down to and including basic English. As it is, every attempt at honest engagement with him goes the same way: someone points out a very basic problem with his idea - usually to do with him not understanding the way a given term is used - and he responds by vomiting a neverending deluge of nonsense all over the thread, then demanding that people prove to him things that have already been proven.

For a Shane conversation in microcosm, take this brief attempt to explain to him what the word "validity" means in the context of logic.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
16-03-2017, 10:50 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 10:11 PM)JesseB Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 09:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  We are talking about the existence of something.
This falls under Philosophy, not science.
The scientific method does not bring us closer to ABSOLUTE truths.
The scientific method does not posit that the observable world is a representation of reality so why would you use the scientific method to prove a reality?
Did I blaspheme your holy book?

This is what the scientific method is:
Wiki:
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

Knowledge & Absolute Truths are two entirely different concepts, so please stop conflating the two.

Absolute truths fall under Philosophical arguments.

Wiki:
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

All knowledge is derived via subjective interpretation, therefore information/knowledge is not a representation of reality.

By the very definition of "Reality" it is impossible for us to possess knowledge about reality. We can only possess knowledge about knowledge.

I know I exist. Therefore my soul exists.
It's that simple.

Having a soul is one of the most fundamental thing we CAN know.
To deny the existence of your soul is to deny knowledge itself.

Your argument fails both at Science and Philosophy. Clearly just pointing out where and why you are wrong isn't going to be enough to get you to think about it. or to see it.

What absolute truth? are you thick?
How can you fit so much wrong in one post?
I'm gonna to relax for a bit, I'll respond to this later, maybe in-between now and then I can think of a way to get something through that thick skull of yours. Anyone else feel like poking at what's so obviously wrong here is welcome.
What does this have to do with your insistence that we use the scientific method?
Why bring it up if you're not willing to defend it?
It's funny how your replies never seem to counter argue anything I said.
You're turning out to be an extreme waste of time.
You add nothing to the discussion but your unsubstantiated opinions.
Almost every point you have made has been counter argued to a certain degree, & yet you have ignored every last counter argument whilst shifting the discussion unto some other opinion you have on the subject matter.

Why did you bring up the scientific method?
You haven't pointed out anything. You just claim to point out something & then run away, every single time. It's very immature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 10:59 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2017 11:04 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 10:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 10:11 PM)JesseB Wrote:  How can you fit so much wrong in one post?

As I've mentioned before, fractal wrongness is pretty much the defining trait in any post Shane makes. That and not even wrong, of course; usually, his statements are so blitheringly insane and utterly disconnected from anything even resembling rationality that there isn't anywhere to start when attempting to debunk them.

The only way that Shane could possibly learn anything would be to give up on the notion that he understands anything at all, down to and including basic English. As it is, every attempt at honest engagement with him goes the same way: someone points out a very basic problem with his idea - usually to do with him not understanding the way a given term is used - and he responds by vomiting a neverending deluge of nonsense all over the thread, then demanding that people prove to him things that have already been proven.

For a Shane conversation in microcosm, take this brief attempt to explain to him what the word "validity" means in the context of logic.
"demanding that people prove to him things that have already been proven."
You expect to be taken seriously? No
You made a claim that all of Neuroscience says consciousness is brain function.
When I asked for a citation you refused to present one.
Google 'Neuroscience Consciousness Brain Function' & you will never find any Neuro-scientists writing any article that states Consciousness is Brain Function. Drinking Beverage
So again I ask where did you get this information from?
Did you pull it out your ass? Facepalm
Try being intellectually honest for a change, you might actual get somewhere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 11:31 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
I'm pretty sure neuroscience has advanced beyond the need of locating the organs most crucial for conscious functioning. No one puts electrodes on anyone's ass to study neuroscience. Surprise, surprise .. the brain is where it is at.

“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like whateverist's post
16-03-2017, 11:51 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 10:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 10:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  As I've mentioned before, fractal wrongness is pretty much the defining trait in any post Shane makes. That and not even wrong, of course; usually, his statements are so blitheringly insane and utterly disconnected from anything even resembling rationality that there isn't anywhere to start when attempting to debunk them.

The only way that Shane could possibly learn anything would be to give up on the notion that he understands anything at all, down to and including basic English. As it is, every attempt at honest engagement with him goes the same way: someone points out a very basic problem with his idea - usually to do with him not understanding the way a given term is used - and he responds by vomiting a neverending deluge of nonsense all over the thread, then demanding that people prove to him things that have already been proven.

For a Shane conversation in microcosm, take this brief attempt to explain to him what the word "validity" means in the context of logic.
"demanding that people prove to him things that have already been proven."
You expect to be taken seriously? No
You made a claim that all of Neuroscience says consciousness is brain function.
When I asked for a citation you refused to present one.
Google 'Neuroscience Consciousness Brain Function' & you will never find any Neuro-scientists writing any article that states Consciousness is Brain Function. Drinking Beverage
So again I ask where did you get this information from?
Did you pull it out your ass? Facepalm
Try being intellectually honest for a change, you might actual get somewhere.

Are you actually fucking implying that your consciousness comes from something other than your brain? Show me the paper that says it comes from the big toe or elbow?

You cannot be this fucking pedantically stupid, can you?

Then again after reading through most of your discussions (and I use that term very loosely) I've determined you can be or you're a fraud who's just trolling for a reaction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
17-03-2017, 12:18 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 10:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You expect to be taken seriously? No

By anyone with a functioning brain, yes.

(16-03-2017 10:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Google 'Neuroscience Consciousness Brain Function' & you will never find any Neuro-scientists writing any article that states Consciousness is Brain Function. Drinking Beverage

It literally takes ten seconds' time to prove you wrong. Literally the first result contradicts you.

You would have known this if you had bothered to do even the most basic research, but then, we've already established that you won't do that.

Because you're an arrogant idiot with no understanding of any of the subjects he feels compelled to mouth off about.

And this is why I don't bother engaging with you beyond reminding you of that.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: