Brain vs soul.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-03-2017, 01:04 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 12:24 AM)JesseB Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 12:10 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Asking if a person has a "soul" is similar to me asking if someone else is having an "experience" like I am, or is just exhibiting all the outward indications of having one.

If there's no test, no way to distinguish between someone with and without these things, it's unfalsifiable. This makes them useless concepts scientifically, until such time as this can be addressed. How can I tell if someone has a soul, or just exhibits all the signs of having one but doesn't really? If the answer is, "There's no way to tell", then it's a useless concept. It doesn't mean it's not real, it just means it's untestable and unnecessary as far as models go. And there's no reason to think it's real, either.

Or if you just state it's impossible for a human to not have a soul then it's just again an unnecessary extra assumption.

I explain in detail why falsifiability is so important in this vid.




Dude Rob, you are one sexy beast.
I forgot to mention just because something isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it's totally useless. It's only scientifically useless (Rob did say this btw).

Take for example Axioms:
Wiki:
An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
eg. a + b = b + a
Mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable but it is extremely USEFUL
see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

There is a common misconception that science brings us closer to absolute truths aka reality.
This is circular logic, in that you will first need an example of an absolute truth to determine if science brings you closer to an absolute truth.
If you need X to prove X then you cannot prove X.

This is the definition of Science:
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

No where in this definition does it say anything about absolute truths or reality now does it?
We assume the physical & natural world is reality simply because we don't know anything else. This is another example of a logical fallacy in that:
Absence of X does not prove Y is true unless we assume the unfalsifiable claim that Y = the Absence of X
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2017, 01:06 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(17-03-2017 11:40 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why do you think the brain precedes self awareness?

Because consciousness - of which self-awareness is a part - is brain function, and you cannot have brain function without a brain.

(17-03-2017 11:40 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  That's just an opinion, it's not a fact.

No, it's a fact.

You're just an idiot.

(17-03-2017 11:40 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Corals and jellyfish (Cnidarians) are just two animals that have no brain & are self aware.

Neither of these things are "self-aware" by the definition that you just gave. They have extremely primitive and limited forms of consciousness at best, as they do not have brains; any residual level of consciousness that they do have is running on very primitive stimulus-response hardware.

And you still aren't even beginning to make an argument for the existence of souls or consciousness existing outside of brain function. You're just following your irresistible compulsion to mouth off about things you don't understand.

Because you're 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
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
18-03-2017, 01:08 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 12:44 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 12:26 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Self awareness is not defined as the ability to have language, name oneself, formulate questions & contemplate.
If it were then I would have lost this argument ages ago.

10 points for creativity though.

Hey dipshit! If you put a jellyfish in front of a mirror, it will not recognize the reflection as itself. Because it has no sense of self, no self identity; it lacks the high level cognition to be capable of doing so. It is a very simple creature reacting to the stimuli in it's environment. It is not self aware.

Chimpanzees and Dolphins are self aware, jellyfish are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test



Hey dipshit, the definition of self awareness does not say anything about "an ability to recognize oneself in front a mirror"

This is your logic:
Self Awareness = Ability to recognize oneself in front of a mirror
Therefore Jelly fishes are not self aware.

Where are you getting these opinionated pieces of information from? Are you pulling them out your ass like Unbeliever and his "Consciousness is Brain Function" claim?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2017, 01:16 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 01:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 12:24 AM)JesseB Wrote:  Dude Rob, you are one sexy beast.
I forgot to mention just because something isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it's totally useless. It's only scientifically useless (Rob did say this btw).

Take for example Axioms:
Wiki:
An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
eg. a + b = b + a
Mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable but it is extremely USEFUL
see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Except, we can falisfy that.

Take a pile of 2 rocks and a pile of 4 flowers, then combine them.

Take another pile of 4 flowers and add 2 rocks to it.

Do both piles now have 2 rocks and 4 flowers?

If you remove a rock or a flower from one of the piles, are they both still equivalent?

Congrats, you just tested the axiom. Drinking Beverage


(18-03-2017 01:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There is a common misconception that science brings us closer to absolute truths aka reality.
This is circular logic, in that you will first need an example of an absolute truth to determine if science brings you closer to an absolute truth.
If you need X to prove X then you cannot prove X.

Except that's not how it works. Science is a method, and through experimentation and evidence, we come to closer approximations in our understanding of how the world around us works and interacts. Newtonian mechanics works pretty damn good, it can even calculate the exact moment that the Voyager probe left the solar system to within a second; but it is not the most accurate approximation we have. There are anomalies in the orbit of Mercury, for which we needed Einstein's relativity to explain, as it produced a more accurate approximation of observable reality.

Still, history has shown us that it is the best method humanity has yet developed for determining things accurately.


(18-03-2017 01:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  This is the definition of Science:
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

No where in this definition does it say anything about absolute truths or reality now does it?

Your point?


(18-03-2017 01:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  We assume the physical & natural world is reality simply because we don't know anything else. This is another example of a logical fallacy in that:
Absence of X does not prove Y is true unless we assume the unfalsifiable claim that Y = the Absence of X

Fuck off. Complete lack of evidence is not a reasonable justification for making up whatever the hell you want. If you want other people to take your hypothesis seriously, you need evidence; of which nobody has yet produced any in support of the existence of the supernatural, souls, or mind-body duality.

So good luck with that.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
18-03-2017, 01:18 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 01:08 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Hey dipshit, the definition of self awareness does not say anything about "an ability to recognize oneself in front a mirror"

This is your logic:
Self Awareness = Ability to recognize oneself in front of a mirror
Therefore Jelly fishes are not self aware.

Where are you getting these opinionated pieces of information from? Are you pulling them out your ass like Unbeliever and his "Consciousness is Brain Function" claim?

Maybe don't create your own ad-hoc definition of self-awareness, and expect everyone else to just start using it, ya fucktard? Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2017, 01:22 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
I just remembered, someone did call me sexy in my Q&A video.





Mathematical statement are falsifiable. Once you've set up an abstract system such as mathematics, you can test whether a particular claim within that system is true or false. And you can do so with certainty, unlike you can ever do with reality. So it's actually much easier to falsify things in mathematics than in reality.

Abstracts systems such as this are tools with which we study reality. We test our systems to see if they are good models, or not. And to be able to compare them to reality, there must be some falsifiable way of doing so.

For example, an abstract model of a human that has a soul as part of it is not functionally any different from a model without one, as far as reality is concerned. The soul only makes any difference within the abstract system itself, which is then of no practical use.

Abstract systems don't have to have any practical use, of course. But when doing science, that is the goal. Otherwise we're just exploring potential fantasy lands in our minds.

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
18-03-2017, 01:25 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
I hope this doesn't distract from the conversation but is anyone here competent with IT?

For a week now I've been trying to load an application over my laptop.

Not on it. Over it. About 2cm above it.

I simply can't get it to work.

Any suggestions?

Weeping

(18-03-2017 12:19 AM)JesseB Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 12:13 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...
I posit it is more rational to believe that self awareness occurs external to the body than to believe it exists somewhere in the body.
...
Edit^ Maybe you're not aware of current events in AI research. I have friends who work on this, and keep pretty up to date. So is your position that some magical force would give computers life?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
18-03-2017, 01:26 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 01:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 01:08 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Hey dipshit, the definition of self awareness does not say anything about "an ability to recognize oneself in front a mirror"

This is your logic:
Self Awareness = Ability to recognize oneself in front of a mirror
Therefore Jelly fishes are not self aware.

Where are you getting these opinionated pieces of information from? Are you pulling them out your ass like Unbeliever and his "Consciousness is Brain Function" claim?

Maybe don't create your own ad-hoc definition of self-awareness, and expect everyone else to just start using it, ya fucktard? Drinking Beverage
It's not adhoc.
All my definitions are quoted from dictionary.com & wiki.
Have you not been reading my posts?

I substantiate my claims within the realm of common understanding based on the dictionary meanings.

You substantiate your claims based on whatever flies out your ass. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2017, 01:34 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
By the way...

Science doesn't ever make statements of absolute truth about reality. That's not a weakness, it's an admission that we are only able to make models. We describe reality. We can't prescribe it. We can only prescribe within abstract systems that we create.

And science only deals with what is testable. It doesn't claim that nothing else exists. It just says that anything else is irrelevant, until such time as it is testable.

Claiming that something does exist because you can't prove that it doesn't is the argument from ignorance fallacy. That's not evidence; it's not even a correct logical argument.

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
[+] 4 users Like Robvalue's post
18-03-2017, 01:36 AM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2017 01:40 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 01:26 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 01:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Maybe don't create your own ad-hoc definition of self-awareness, and expect everyone else to just start using it, ya fucktard? Drinking Beverage
It's not adhoc.
All my definitions are quoted from dictionary.com & wiki.
Have you not been reading my posts?

I substantiate my claims within the realm of common understanding based on the dictionary meanings.

You substantiate your claims based on whatever flies out your ass. Drinking Beverage


Uh, you are the one presupposing that jellyfish are self aware, dumbass.

How do you propose to test that? The mirror test is one way to test potential self awareness.

But you didn't propose a test, you just assumed that jellyfish are self aware because they react to their environment. Self awareness is not needed to account to reaction to stimuli, unless you are positing that single cell bacteria are also self aware. Your interpretation of the definition of 'self awareness' is so broad and lacking in understanding as to be almost useless.


(17-03-2017 11:40 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  This is the definition of self awareness:
Self-awareness is the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals

Corals and jellyfish (Cnidarians) are just two animals that have no brain & are self aware.
They feed themselves & have sex without a brain. Are they not self aware based on the definition of self awareness?
Is this not an ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.


How has a jellyfish shown that it recognizes a 'self'? How do you propose to test such a hypothesis? What evidence do you have that supports that jellyfish, without brains, are indeed capable of such high level cognitive functions? How would any of this not also apply to a single celled bacterium?

Indeed, by your overly simple interpretation, even a simple computer program can be considered 'self aware' as it too can react to it's environment. My computer is self aware, because it can recognize other computers on the network which are not itself. Skynet is already here, we are already doomed.


This is why you're an idiot.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: