Brain vs soul.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2017, 08:08 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(21-02-2017 05:54 AM)Vera Wrote:  DelJoy (yep, I'm calling you thus from now on, get used to it Yes ), Scott Adams? The creep who said he'd start killing if wimmin didn't provide enough hugsies, sammiches and naughty times? The idiot who said this? No

[Image: adams3-660x330.jpg]
Yeah, Adams has gotten increasingly "out there" of late, but that doesn't dilute his cogent insights into the everyday absurdities of relationships, especially of work life, or the playfully absurd appeal of the cartoon DLJ posted.

If you like Adam's style of humor but not his increasing philosophical overreach and cynical hubris, try The Oatmeal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 10:22 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(21-02-2017 05:54 AM)Vera Wrote:  ...
And speaking of homunculi, here's the brilliant Ted Chiang (again) with a story about a world where preformationism really *is* how the world works. Fascinating thought experiment. As usual.

Incredible. In both senses of the word.

Couldn't put it down, as the saying goes.

Thank you, Vera, for my now inevitable Chiang addiction.

Thumbsup Weeping

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
21-02-2017, 11:01 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(21-02-2017 10:22 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Incredible. In both senses of the word.

Couldn't put it down, as the saying goes.

Thank you, Vera, for my now inevitable Chiang addiction.

Thumbsup Weeping

Yay, a fellow convertee! Heart

Seriously, this man has the most fascinating brain (I mean, the guy has a story about the Tower of Babylon. And, believe it or not, it makes sense!). Such a pity he’s only written a handful of stories Undecided

Remember that beauty quote I sent you some time ago? That’s him. Interestingly enough, he refused an award for that story, because he felt he’d been pressured into finishing it and it wasn’t exactly what he had in mind, or something like this. I’ve no idea how exactly it would’ve been different, but I think it’s great the way it is now. It’s about beauty and how it colours the way we think of others and a society where people can choose whether to turn off the ability to perceive beauty in people as such, as it were. Am not doing it much justice, but it’s great and thought-provoking.

“Think of cocaine. In its natural form, as coca leaves, it's appealing, but not to an extent that it usually becomes a problem. But refine it, purify it, and you get a compound that hits your pleasure receptors with an unnatural intensity. That's when it becomes addictive.

Beauty has undergone a similar process, thanks to advertisers.Evolution gave us a circuit that responds to good looks--call it the pleasure receptor for our visual cortex--and in our natural environment, it was useful to have. But take a person with one-in-a-million skin and bone structure, add professional makeup and retouching, and you're no longer looking at beauty in its natural form. You've got pharmaceutical grade beauty, the cocaine of good looks.”

And then there’s Hell is the Absence of God, which I’ve already gushed about plenty Yes

If you like him, you should definitely check out Greg Egan’s stuff, too. From what I’ve read so far (only short stories thus far) he’s every bit as brilliant and fascinating, and diverse and simply great, as Ted Chiang. That Moral Virologist story I mentioned somewhere else, about a hyper-religious scientist who decides AIDS is basically God’s warning shot of a punishment for sinners and he (the scientist) is his weapon, meant to… well, weaponise the virus/create a plague of his own, is brilliant.

He also has a story about a woman who has to literally carry the brain of her husband in her womb, while his new body is grown (he's had an accident and needs a new body and the cheapest life-support for his brain - the only thing their insurance would cover - is what they call biological life-support). So it deals with some of the questions I see pop up in this place time and time again, about the right of bodily autonomy and what have you.

Hard science-fiction (as opposed to adventure stories with lasers (Chiang's word and boy, do I love him even more for them Blush ) at its best. IMHO

PS. Both writers are atheists. I checked – no way am I wasting my time reading pages and pages of something (esp. something called Hell is the Absence of God), only to discover it’s some modern day crappy C.S. Lewis’ crappier incarnation ;-)

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vera's post
21-02-2017, 11:27 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
"Soul" is a metaphor. A lot of people get carried away and blur the line between metaphor and reality.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
14-03-2017, 02:43 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(27-01-2017 11:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no evidence for "souls".
None
There is no evidence we are anything more than a soul.
ie. A self aware being capable of thought.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Agnostic Shane's post
14-03-2017, 02:49 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(14-03-2017 02:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There is no evidence we are anything more than a soul.

Yes, there is.

(14-03-2017 02:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ie. A self aware being capable of thought.

That is not what "soul" means.

"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
14-03-2017, 06:55 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(14-03-2017 02:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(14-03-2017 02:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There is no evidence we are anything more than a soul.

Yes, there is.

(14-03-2017 02:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ie. A self aware being capable of thought.

That is not what "soul" means.
What does it mean then?
Oh and I'm still waiting for the citation that says consciousness/self awareness is brain function.
You know the one that " all neuroscience " is supposed to have said?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2017, 10:51 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(14-03-2017 06:55 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What does it mean then?

It doesn't mean anything. It is an incoherent concept.

It does not mean "self-aware being capable of thought".

(14-03-2017 06:55 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Oh and I'm still waiting for the citation that says consciousness/self awareness is brain function.
You know the one that " all neuroscience " is supposed to have said?

Yes.

Go Google the word "neuroscience". You have long since used up what little patience anyone here had for doing your research for you.

"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
14-03-2017, 10:59 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(27-01-2017 12:43 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Ripples may remain but they too diminish and disappear with time.

Are you looking to join Genesis?

[Image: giphy.gif]





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
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
15-03-2017, 05:46 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(14-03-2017 10:51 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(14-03-2017 06:55 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What does it mean then?

It doesn't mean anything. It is an incoherent concept.

It does not mean "self-aware being capable of thought".

(14-03-2017 06:55 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Oh and I'm still waiting for the citation that says consciousness/self awareness is brain function.
You know the one that " all neuroscience " is supposed to have said?

Yes.

Go Google the word "neuroscience". You have long since used up what little patience anyone here had for doing your research for you.
"Doing my research for me"?
You're the one claiming consciousness is "brain function"
When asked to provide proof of this you tell me to google it because you don't have patience.
This is called shifting the burden of proof and I'm sure you already knew that.
I google it & I have been studying consciousness for years. Consciousness is not defined as "brain function" in any article.


Now you are making another claim without providing any proof:
You made the claim a soul is an incoherent concept.
Show me where a soul is defined as an incoherently concept.

From dictionary.com
The principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.

Apart from it not having the word incoherent in the definition can you tell me what's incoherent about the definition?

I have simplified the definition even further being stating a soul simply is a self aware being capable of thought.

My proof:
I am a self aware being capable of thought. I exist therefore my soul exists.
A soul is your identity.
What is the Self without a soul?

The self is an incoherent concept without first defining what a soul is.

What makes you you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: