Brain vs soul.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2017, 02:19 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(19-03-2017 02:06 AM)JesseB Wrote:  Very well written. Thank you.

TL;DR Version

Truth is a path, not a destination. Something to strive for, even if it's unobtainable.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-03-2017, 02:28 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
I think it's sensible to say that there are things that are absolutely true.

It's just that we can't ever know them. We can only approximate them. Only within our own artificially constructed abstract systems can we have access to absolute truth.

However, it may be that the truth is specific as well as absolute. For example, gravity may work a certain way, but only in certain conditions, and only during a particular time period. It might just start working totally differently at another point. Or may have in the past.

All we can do is model as best we can. Being uncomfortable with models does not bring one closer to truth. In instead leads one into the entirely abstract, disconnected from reality.

Or the way I like to put it... philosophy is not something you can bolt on to the end of science in order to increase its reach. You're just speculating. You're saying how you feel things are, or should be. And often, you're just replacing the gaps in your knowledge with magical constructs. "I can't understand how it works, so I'll make it up."

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
19-03-2017, 06:28 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2017 06:36 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(19-03-2017 02:28 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  I think it's sensible to say that there are things that are absolutely true.

It's just that we can't ever know them. We can only approximate them. Only within our own artificially constructed abstract systems can we have access to absolute truth.

However, it may be that the truth is specific as well as absolute. For example, gravity may work a certain way, but only in certain conditions, and only during a particular time period. It might just start working totally differently at another point. Or may have in the past.

All we can do is model as best we can. Being uncomfortable with models does not bring one closer to truth. In instead leads one into the entirely abstract, disconnected from reality.

Or the way I like to put it... philosophy is not something you can bolt on to the end of science in order to increase its reach. You're just speculating. You're saying how you feel things are, or should be. And often, you're just replacing the gaps in your knowledge with magical constructs. "I can't understand how it works, so I'll make it up."
You are quite right when you say "philosophy is not something you can bolt on to the end of science in order to increase its reach"
This is because science is bolted down to the scientific method, which belongs to the Philosophical underpinnings of logic.

As Grandma used to say. Common sense comes before book sense.

If you read the history of science you will observe:
Science is derived from Philosophy & not the other way around.

In fact more than 90% of all fields of study can be "linked back" to Philosophy.
I mean literally.
Use the link back function of wiki, it's just amazing.
If you think about it for a while you will figure out why as I did.

You cannot ponder the logic of any field without first applying logic.

I'm still confused as to why it wasn't linked back 100% though.
Maybe someone here could help me with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2017, 06:44 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2017 06:58 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 02:08 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Self awareness occurs in brainless jelly fishes & near death survivors whose body dies but the brain doesn't.

See that right there ? You DID. Now you lie about it.
Those who had NDEs do not have "dead bodies". You know NOTHING about science.

Quote:It simply means Self Awareness is evident in a bodyless brain (life supported bodies). I then went on to say self awareness is evident in a brainless body (jellyfishes)

It (logic) means no such thing. You're ASSUMING what you think you observe is present. Logic dictates no such thing. You have no evidence of self-awareness.

Quote:Logic dictates if you eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.

Nope. You are ignorant of the "factors", AND this universe has been proven to be non-intuitive. Wrong on so many levels.

Quote:Therefore self awareness must be evident regardless of the brain & body.
Baseless assumption. NO scientist says jellyfish are self aware. Not. One.

Quote:You don't need evidence to prove something doesn't exist in a certain location.
That's like me saying God doesn't exist in the physical/natural world & you telling me I have no evidence.

You have none for either.

Quote:Why is "seeing itself" as something relevant to self awareness?
In the articles you posted earlier it clearly states that "Self Awareness is manifest at birth"

No they don't They posit rudimentary (undeveloped) self-awareness may be evident
IN HUMAN infants.... NOTHING ELSE.

Quote:Therefore you cannot posit Metacognition ("seeing itself" as something) is a defining characteristic of self awareness or it would contradict the article you posted earlier. According to the article you posted it's a characteristic of a higher level of self awareness.

You have never defined "self-awareness" OR the criteria by which you would know or test it exists.

Quote:As i stated before Metacognition is simply a higher state of self awareness.

You state a lot of shit. You define and demonstrate nothing.

Quote:With regards to instincts being contradictory to self awareness I would need a citation. As far as I can tell, instinct & self awareness can co-exist in the same body.

Jellyfish are not on your list of 10.

Quote:These animals also show instinctive behavior. Therefore having instinct does not contradict having self awareness.

LMAO. The classical fallacy : http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htm
I never said what you claim. Humans have both obviously. You ASKED for an explanation, and you got one. Now you dishonestly twist what was given to you.
Instinctive behavior explains feeding. No self-awareness is necessary for that to happen.

Quote:Develop does not mean Start
It means to Grow

More dishonest equivocation.
Undeveloped means rudimentary, incomplete. You have NO EVIDENCE for your garbage, and you know nothing about science. You have not a shred of evidence that self-awareness is independent of totally physical processes that happen when brains are working and healthy.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ple-brain/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Bucky Ball's post
19-03-2017, 06:46 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(19-03-2017 12:57 AM)JesseB Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 12:54 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  



My relationship with this entire thread, summed up in one video.

HAHAHAHA ..... I should have listened to you more closely.......
I am a harmless lil bunny.
You just keep cutting yourself with the sword everything you swing at me.
Laughat

What's up doc
Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2017, 06:55 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
Fuck me... I go away for less than 24 hours, only to come back and find Agnostic Shane has posted TWENTY TWO comments.

Time to click on this baby?

[Image: 52f80ff1e4b0512c88e6d100-thomaster-13919...hammer.jpg]


Dodgy

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
19-03-2017, 07:00 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(19-03-2017 06:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You cannot ponder the logic of any field without first applying logic.

There are logics that are perfectly correct, but do not obtain, in reality.
What logical system are you even talking about ?

Tell me how logic was useful in Relativity, Uncertainty, and the math (tensors) of Dirac.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
19-03-2017, 07:03 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(19-03-2017 06:55 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Fuck me... I go away for less than 24 hours, only to come back and find Agnostic Shane has posted TWENTY TWO comments.

Time to click on this baby?

[Image: 52f80ff1e4b0512c88e6d100-thomaster-13919...hammer.jpg]


Dodgy
Are you the Jefferson Beauregard of the Atheist community?
Always clamoring for the death penalty.
Luckily Mom isn't your "Trump" card
GaspLaugh out load
padumpumching
Angel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2017, 07:11 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2017 07:21 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(19-03-2017 07:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 06:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You cannot ponder the logic of any field without first applying logic.

There are logics that are perfectly correct, but do not obtain, in reality.
What logical system are you even talking about ?

Tell me how logic was useful in Relativity, Uncertainty, and the math (tensors) of Dirac.
It's useful because logic is a pre-requirement of understanding. If you wish to understand Relativity, Uncertainty, and the math (tensors) of Dirac you must first be able to understand the language. To understand language you must apply philosophical logic.

Quantum logic
In quantum mechanics, quantum logic is a set of rules for reasoning about propositions that takes the principles of quantum theory into account.

Quantum Logic and Probability Theory

Quantum Logic in Historical and Philosophical Perspective

[Image: full-of-win.jpg]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language]In logic and the foundations of mathematics, formal languages are used to represent the syntax of axiomatic systems, and mathematical formalism is the philosophy that all of mathematics can be reduced to the syntactic manipulation of formal languages in this way.[/quote]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2017, 08:10 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(19-03-2017 06:44 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 02:08 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Self awareness occurs in brainless jelly fishes & near death survivors whose body dies but the brain doesn't.

See that right there ? You DID. Now you lie about it.
Those who had NDEs do not have "dead bodies". You know NOTHING about science.
Brain Function is not a pre-requisite for life.
Here are examples of 10 Brainless Animals

Self Awareness IS a pre-requisite of life.
The Immortal Worm - Planarian can be cut into 279 pieces and each piece will become a new living organism

They are considered to be alive because:
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

Any physical entity that has self-sustaining processes MUST be self aware or they would not be able to manifest self-sustaining processes

Metacogonition does not equivocate Self Awareness because metacogonition occurs after birth whilst self awareness is manifest at birth.
You continuously conflate the two
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: