Brain vs soul.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2017, 04:31 AM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2017 04:47 AM by JesseB.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 10:50 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 10:11 PM)JesseB Wrote:  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.

I'm quite willing to defend any of my positions. I have no obligation to defend them on your schedule. Deal with it.

Playing video games with my friend seemed like a better use of my time, given the piss poor arguments you're forming and lack of critical thought you're applying. Now that I"m done I'll address your statements.

First thank you mom and Unbeliever, you both did a great job with your responses Smile

First without philosophy, science would not exist. From a historical standpoint that is where science started, and anyone who's ever bothered to read a history book should know this. In case you haven't, here's a good one you could try. Alan Chalmers "What is this thing called science?" Or again my personal favorite "Our Demon Haunted World" By Carl Sagan.

Philosophy and Science are very closely related, without philosophy we would never have any hypothesis's to work with. However my suggestion that you learn the scientific method wasn't to give you this perspective, it was so you could learn the difference between Gravity, what it is, how it works, how we know it is a function of reality. And your assertion that you can somehow "measure" the soul by observing how it functions (I think you're example wen't something like I think therefor I am, therefor a soul exists? Yea.... you're adding something here... I wonder what.... I wonder if you can spot the logical fallacy in it).

I mean.... You have something called self awareness (though some here might debate that). You could call it a soul, if you mean an EGO, or ID they are imaginary constructs that don't technically exist in reality, for all intents and practical purposes you can sum them all up as the same thing if you want (I mean its more complex than that, but I don't expect you to delve so deep so soon). Harry potter is an idea too. These are examples of abstract constructs. Mathematics also falls in this category. Does that mean math is real? Meh Yes and No. This extends to the soul. Sure in some way you can quantify the fact that you are self aware. Like this.

Perhaps this might also help?




I suppose the basic point is you lack a solid foundation to build from and it show's to pretty much everyone here.
Basically if your foundations and premise are flawed everything that follows will be rubbish.

A good place to start before any of this (In my opinion) is the study of logical structure (And yea I say that to everyone), a study of logical fallacies, maybe some self help book geared at breaking you from your confirmation bias, and setting aside some structured time (preferably with a tutor or teacher) for real study of these topics. Maybe you can't study almost 20 hours a day like I did in college. but even a couple of hours a day (with real books, not conspiracy websites), could help you a lot.

Notice that unlike everyone else here I've not been overly hostile towards you, I'm offering you suggestions that if you follow them WILL help you. Now this took me an entire 10 min to write (research time included, though technically I already knew where to look). How much effort do you expect me to make for you? Ever heard the phrase "You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink"?

How much of my valuable time do you want to waste? Do some of this work yourself. It's pathetic dude.

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
17-03-2017, 05:52 AM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2017 06:03 AM by JesseB.)
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.
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.

Whoah slow down the crazy train here dude. This is so fucking wrong its hard to know where to begin....

Being a computer science major I suppose I should stick with how we generally frame things, as its easier for me.

Lets change the word reality to data (because in this example they mean the same thing more or less)
"Data: Facts and figures which relay something specific, but which are not organized in any way and which provide no further information regarding patterns, context, etc. I will use the definition for data presented by Thierauf (1999): "unstructured facts and figures that have the least impact on the typical manager.""

Now realty actually resides slightly below data, data is what we gain when we measure and observe reality. But for the sake of this example we're tying the two together (where the scientific method starts)

Once we've organized all of this we gain information we can then analyze (the process where the scientific method applies most)

The end result is Knowledge
"Knowledge: Knowledge is closely linked to doing and implies know-how and understanding. The knowledge possessed by each individual is a product of his experience, and encompasses the norms by which he evaluates new inputs from his surroundings (Davenport & Prusak 2000). I will use the definition presented by Gamble and Blackwell (2001), based closely on a previous definition by Davenport & Prusak:"

Source

You can not gain ANY knowledge from philosophy alone. It's almost like saying you've solved complex Trigonometry using ONLY addition (except it fails even worse than that as you lack ANY method to ensure the answer you've gained is the right one). Like... have fun with imaginary numbers (its a real thing lol go to school). You honestly don't understand what you just tried to say??!!

"The difference between physics and metaphysics is not that the practitioners of one are smarter than the practitioners of the other. The difference is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory." Carl Sagan

This is the difference between science and philosophy in direct relation in a specific example. The point he is making is you can't know anything just by sitting on your ass imagining shit up, or "thinking" about it (the same fucking thing). Without measurements, observations, tests, falsifiable, you can literally never KNOW anything. You can only THINK things, IMAGINE them. That is not a path to "truth" or Knowledge in any sense.

Now I take objection to you mentioning an "Objective truth" in a previous post because there's no reason to think that such a thing exists. However if it does exist the scientific method would be the only way you could ever get there, and ensure you're not mistaken.

The scientific method isn't a fucking bible, its nothing more than a methodology designed to ensure that you can build the most accurate, reliable model of reality possible. With checks n balances, and paths for continual course correction to ensure it remains accurate.

Edit for clarity, this was the exact claim for the example below, "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." AgnosticShane
Also your claim that we can't know that the golden gate bridge is 2737 Meters because its length is a construct of reality and therefor unknowable is patently absurd. Do you even try to think about this stuff and the implications of your wild assertions?

Honestly, I don't refuse to ever debunk any of your points. It's just the shit that comes out of your mouth is so wrong it would literally take 1,000 times more facts to set your ass backwards ideas straight. There's more stupid in what you say than any one person could reasonably be expected to respond to this quickly.

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
[+] 5 users Like JesseB's post
17-03-2017, 09:34 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(17-03-2017 04:31 AM)JesseB Wrote:  ---
I suppose the basic point is you lack a solid foundation to build from and it show's to pretty much everyone here.
Basically if your foundations and premise are flawed everything that follows will be rubbish.
---

JesseB is right: everything must have a solid foundation.
***

I love to learn - I consider learning to be the most worthy personal endeavor. So, in the spirit of the learning experience, I want to contribute one of the most precious things I or anyone, can know.

It could be the most difficult and challenging thing to understand. It is humbling to realize that this is where actual thinking begins.

To me, this is the very foundation of discovery and curiosity.
I DO NOT KNOW.

Begin here and use tools properly. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like kim's post
17-03-2017, 09:50 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(17-03-2017 09:34 AM)kim Wrote:  I love to learn - I consider learning to be the most worthy personal endeavor.

The problem is that almost everyone is taught to fill in the blanks. They have to unlearn what they thought they knew before they can really learn.

Smartass
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
17-03-2017, 10:40 AM
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.
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.

(17-03-2017 09:34 AM)kim Wrote:  
(17-03-2017 04:31 AM)JesseB Wrote:  ---
I suppose the basic point is you lack a solid foundation to build from and it show's to pretty much everyone here.
Basically if your foundations and premise are flawed everything that follows will be rubbish.
---

JesseB is right: everything must have a solid foundation.
***

I love to learn - I consider learning to be the most worthy personal endeavor. So, in the spirit of the learning experience, I want to contribute one of the most precious things I or anyone, can know.

It could be the most difficult and challenging thing to understand. It is humbling to realize that this is where actual thinking begins.

To me, this is the very foundation of discovery and curiosity.
I DO NOT KNOW.

Begin here and use tools properly. Shy

Word Smile

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
17-03-2017, 10:43 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(17-03-2017 09:50 AM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  
(17-03-2017 09:34 AM)kim Wrote:  I love to learn - I consider learning to be the most worthy personal endeavor.

The problem is that almost everyone is taught to fill in the blanks. They have to unlearn what they thought they knew before they can really learn.

Smartass

This is the difference between grade school and college (in my limited experience). For me college was such an amazing liberating experience, I want to go back one day.

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
[+] 1 user Likes JesseB's post
17-03-2017, 10:55 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(17-03-2017 05:52 AM)JesseB Wrote:  There's more stupid in what you say than any one person could reasonably be expected to respond to this quickly.

Experience is the foundation of naive philosophy. The naive philosopher must take care not to confuse the sensory experience with the sensual.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
17-03-2017, 10:55 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 09:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  All knowledge is derived via subjective interpretation, therefore information/knowledge is not a representation of reality.

You must have missed the class in grade school when the rest of us learned the definition of the word "representation". By your own argument, representations of reality are all we have access to. There is no requirement for representations to be either objective or accurate. Here is one representation of reality.

[Image: the-starry-night-18891_zps1udazlrn.jpg]

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
17-03-2017, 08:08 PM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2017 08:12 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
It literally takes less than 10 seconds to show you how dumb your argument is.
Shane: What causes Self awareness in the human body?
You: The brain
Facepalm
You do know your brain is part of your body right?
Drinking Beverage
Circular Logic FTW No
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2017, 08:28 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(17-03-2017 08:08 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It literally takes less than 10 seconds to show you how dumb your argument is.
Shane: What causes Self awareness in the human body?
You: The brain
Facepalm
You do know your brain is part of your body right?
Drinking Beverage
Circular Logic FTW No

Yes the brain is a part of the body, and so is the stomach. But the stomach isn't self-aware, the brain is. What self is the brain aware of? The body. How is it aware of the body? Through the nervous system, which take messages from all over the body to the brain to be synthesized and interpreted. The brain is specialized for this function -- and for operating in the external world -- just as the stomach is specialized for digesting food.

Why is this circular?

Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thoreauvian's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: