Brain vs soul.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2017, 08:22 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 07:36 AM)Rik Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 06:30 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Firstly, not finding evidence to support the existence of something does not mean that it objectively does not exist. It simply means that the something is not known to exist.

Now unto my reply
You said:
"Dualism has no evidence to support it."
What do you mean by "dualism has no evidence to support it"?

Dualism is a well studied field in quantum mechanics.
Have you never heard of:
Wave/Particle Duality
Super Imposed States
Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein all spoke about Dualism

Maybe you meant dualism between the brain and a soul has no evidence to support it.

Obviously.

Quote:All of this is besides the point when you consider this world could be no different than an extremely real video game and the true self (soul) is the one hooked up to the machine.

Pointless babble. If there is no way to falsify the idea it has no merit.

Quote:Our thoughts tell the game what we want to SEE but the main board can only SHOW us what we ask within the mechanics of the game.
Eg. We cannot tell the game we want to SEE Donkey Kong to turn into Rad Racer, but if we decide to SEE him jump the game will SHOW us him jumping.

All POSSIBLE realities exist within the fabric of the game, but only the ones we desire to see happen will be made available for our viewing.
Key word is possible, if we desire to see an impossible reality it will not be shown.

A soul is therefore not the one pulling the strings but rather just an observer using the mechanics of the brain/body to view this movie we call reality/life.

And how does this soul observe? With what does this soul think? Your wishful thinking is at about an eighth-grade level.
The soul is a concept no different than time is a concept. Concepts are philosophical constructs which help us to understand the world. It has no bearing in terms of materialistic relevance but it does not mean it is irrational.
Let me ask you a simple question:
Do you believe that ONLY things that are empirically observable can lay the claim to absolute truth?
If you do then this might shock you:
This is an Axiom. It's an assertion that cannot be falsified.
Why?
Because you we cannot test for things that are none empirical (it's logically impossible)

Conclusion:
You believe in something that cannot be falsified.
You don't hear me saying "Your wishful thinking is at about an eighth-grade level."
Let's try to be fair to each other for a change?
What do you say my friend?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 08:41 AM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2017 08:48 AM by Heath_Tierney.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 07:59 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 07:39 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Assertion without evidence, therefore it can be discarded as irrational.
I do so love this game Smile Kinda like Chess
Checkmate:
Not all assertions without evidence can be discarded as irrational.

Point remains, you made an assertion - a HUGE assertion, which would require the entire re-writing of physics as we know it - that requires evidence.

You have provided no evidence.

Therefore, your assertion can be discarded.

By your "logic" I could assert that my neighbour's dog is the Master of the Universe without providing evidence and expect you to take it seriously.

But I won't do that because I know that such an assertion, without evidence, is irrational.

Besides, anytime I see the term "checkmate" used in an argument, that's pretty much the last arrow in their quiver. It's like Trump supporters using patriotism in an argument. It's the last refuge of those who know they've lost.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heath_Tierney's post
15-03-2017, 08:42 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 08:09 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(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.
...

Do you even VM?

Rolleyes
That's like saying Life is blood flow.

Consider this:
An amoeba has no brain function but it is self aware at the most fundamental level.
It uses the information from it's surroundings to develop a unique closed system within the amoeba (itself)

Where does this SENSE of self awareness comes from. What is causing it to use this information in a way that positively affects it as opposed to not using it at all. In other words what motivates an amoeba to continue it's existence?
When observing an inanimate object there is no evidence of self awareness.
Can you pinpoint where this sense of self awareness comes from within creatures?

I am not a Theist & yes I think it is plausible that everything that is self aware has a soul. ie a sense of self that is not evidenced for in the material world (a immaterial thought process).
It's not a belief, but just an observation
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 09:04 AM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2017 09:45 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 08:41 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 07:59 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I do so love this game Smile Kinda like Chess
Checkmate:
Not all assertions without evidence can be discarded as irrational.

Point remains, you made an assertion - a HUGE assertion, which would require the entire re-writing of physics as we know it - that requires evidence.

You have provided no evidence.

Therefore, your assertion can be discarded.

By your "logic" I could assert that my neighbour's dog is the Master of the Universe without providing evidence and expect you to take it seriously.

But I won't do that because I know that such an assertion, without evidence, is irrational.

Besides, anytime I see the term "checkmate" used by a theist in an argument, that's pretty much the last arrow in their quiver. It's like Trump supporters using patriotism in an argument. It's the last refuge of those who know they've lost.
I'm not a Theist.
I debate Theists for a hobby. In fact I debate for a hobby. Just because I am an atheist doesn't mean I wont debate atheists.

Now unto your rebuttal:
You have to understand how arguments are structured or you will find yourself arguing correctly but for the wrong topic.
Firstly, you should know I am agnostic on the position of a soul.
In this topic we are speaking about the soul as a matter of logical necessity for any being wishing to identify as "the self".
If you believe "the self" is just an illusion then we need not argue anymore, because this debate is meant only for those who are of the opinion that "the self" is real but the "soul" isn't. A position widely accepted by most Atheists.

The soul being nothing more than a sense of self awareness (again I am not a Theist so I will not attempt to add more meaning that that)
If you have any evidence as to where does this "SENSE of self awareness come from" please provide it.
Failure to provide physical evidence as to where does a sense of self awareness comes from means you cannot justify belief in "the self"
Conclusion:
Therefore, by logical necessity people that believe in "the self" must also believe in a soul. If you do not believe in a soul then you should not believe in "the self".

^ This is all I am saying.

Evidence is so overrated when compared to the philosophy of Logic. Here's why:

With regards to your dog being the Master of the Universe:

Is Empirical Evidence a requirement for the existence of something (scientifically speaking)?

We can tell that something exists simply by the way other things behave near the source even though we have no empirical evidence about the source.
eg. Dark Energy, Black Holes, The Self, Gravity, etc...

Empirical Evidence is not the be all & end all for existence. Forces are also evidence for the existence of something.
Self Awareness is the evidence for a soul force in the same way the law of gravity is evidence for a gravity force.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 09:25 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 08:09 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Do you even VM?

Rolleyes
That's like saying Life is blood flow.
...

Nope. Not even close to saying that.

(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Consider this:
An amoeba has no brain function but it is self aware at the most fundamental level.
...

Where's your evidence for that.

There is no evidence that it has awareness of 'self' ... only that it has proximity sensors.

(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...
It uses the information from it's its surroundings to develop a unique closed system within the amoeba (itself)
...

That's self-contained, not self-aware.

(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...
Where does this SENSE of self awareness comes from. What is causing it to use this information in a way that positively affects it as opposed to not using it at all.
...

It's not self-aware.

(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...
In other words what motivates an amoeba to continue it's its existence?
...

Evolution, baby. The survival trait is the product of natural selection.

(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...
When observing an inanimate object there is no evidence of self awareness.
Can you pinpoint where this sense of self awareness comes from within creatures?
...

I can't. The same way I can't pinpoint where the self-monitoring system is on my laptop. Because it's systemic.

(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...
I am not a Theist & yes I think it is plausible that everything that is self aware has a soul. ie a sense of self that is not evidenced for in the material world (a an immaterial thought process).
...

Why would it be plausible without evidence?

(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...
It's not a belief, but just an observation

It's a speculation.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
15-03-2017, 10:16 AM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2017 10:45 AM by Heath_Tierney.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 09:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Evidence is so overrated when compared to the philosophy of Logic. Here's why:

With regards to your dog being the Master of the Universe:

Is Empirical Evidence a requirement for the existence of something (scientifically speaking)?

We can tell that something exists simply by the way other things behave near the source even though we have no empirical evidence about the source.
eg. Dark Energy, Black Holes, The Self, Gravity, etc...

Empirical Evidence is not the be all & end all for existence. Forces are also evidence for the existence of something.
Self Awareness is the evidence for a soul force in the same way the law of gravity is evidence for a gravity force.

We have empirical evidence of the existence black holes, the self, gravity. Dark energy (and dark matter), not yet, but it seems we're getting there. Source: Where does dark energy come from?

But your repeated stating of "Self Awareness is the evidence for a soul" does not make it true, no matter how many times you say it. Self-awareness decreases as the level of brain activity decreases. Your logic - "Forces are also evidence for the existence of something" - puts to bed your assertion that there's a soul involved, since decrease in brain activity is directly causal to decrease in self-awareness.

If a soul were involved, brain activity would be moot.

By the way, I provided evidence that the brain is fully responsible for consciousness back in post #41.

*edit to add*

There's also this bit, which is somewhat long but is very detailed and goes into the nuts-and-bolts of why Cartesian dualism is, well, just plain wrong. The real problem

Tl; dr, from the article -
Quote:...fundamental aspects of our experiences of conscious selfhood might depend on control-oriented predictive perception of our messy physiology, of our animal blood and guts. We are conscious selves because we too are beast machines – self-sustaining flesh-bags that care about their own persistence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 10:49 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 09:25 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  That's like saying Life is blood flow.
...

Nope. Not even close to saying that.

(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Consider this:
An amoeba has no brain function but it is self aware at the most fundamental level.
...

Where's your evidence for that.

There is no evidence that it has awareness of 'self' ... only that it has proximity sensors.

(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...
It uses the information from it's its surroundings to develop a unique closed system within the amoeba (itself)
...

That's self-contained, not self-aware.

(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...
Where does this SENSE of self awareness comes from. What is causing it to use this information in a way that positively affects it as opposed to not using it at all.
...

It's not self-aware.

(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...
In other words what motivates an amoeba to continue it's its existence?
...

Evolution, baby. The survival trait is the product of natural selection.

(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...
When observing an inanimate object there is no evidence of self awareness.
Can you pinpoint where this sense of self awareness comes from within creatures?
...

I can't. The same way I can't pinpoint where the self-monitoring system is on my laptop. Because it's systemic.

(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...
I am not a Theist & yes I think it is plausible that everything that is self aware has a soul. ie a sense of self that is not evidenced for in the material world (a an immaterial thought process).
...

Why would it be plausible without evidence?

(15-03-2017 08:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ...
It's not a belief, but just an observation

It's a speculation.

Drinking Beverage
You fail to address my question & are bypassing the most fundamental issue.

Self contained still requires self awareness.
Self awareness is the ability to recognize identity. When an Amoeba touches a rock it doesn't try to feed the rock.

I am simply asking what is the cause for any living organism to seek anything for itself as opposed to being inanimate or otherwise.
There are two forces at play here. A sense of self & a desire to keep the self alive.
Natural selection only shows a desire to keep the self alive. It's also a concept, not actual physical evidence. These guys are begging for evidence.

Let me simplify the question a bit:
I take it you are an adherent of cause and effect.

By the use of only empirical evidence:
What gene (body part) CAUSES a desire to keep the self in an aware state?
What gene (body part) CAUSES an organism to become self aware?
Is there any lifeless objects that seek to increase self preservation?
What caused reality to go from none self aware matter to self aware matter?

These are the most fundamental characteristics of life.

Failure to find such evidence does not detract from the fact that organisms are self aware and desire to stay alive.

Just like gravity, we have no evidence for it outside of it's interaction with the physical world. Scientists gave the downward force known as gravity a name so why is it so wrong to give the force of self awareness a name?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 11:36 AM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2017 12:57 PM by kim.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
Hmm. Consider
It appears someone may be confusing (or trying to conflate) the notion of sentience with sensorial traits.


I don't have television so I'll just watch. 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
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
15-03-2017, 11:44 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 10:49 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 09:25 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Nope. Not even close to saying that.


Where's your evidence for that.

There is no evidence that it has awareness of 'self' ... only that it has proximity sensors.


That's self-contained, not self-aware.


It's not self-aware.


Evolution, baby. The survival trait is the product of natural selection.


I can't. The same way I can't pinpoint where the self-monitoring system is on my laptop. Because it's systemic.


Why would it be plausible without evidence?


It's a speculation.

Drinking Beverage
You fail to address my question & are bypassing the most fundamental issue.

Self contained still requires self awareness.
Self awareness is the ability to recognize identity. When an Amoeba touches a rock it doesn't try to feed the rock.

I am simply asking what is the cause for any living organism to seek anything for itself as opposed to being inanimate or otherwise.
There are two forces at play here. A sense of self & a desire to keep the self alive.
Natural selection only shows a desire to keep the self alive. It's also a concept, not actual physical evidence. These guys are begging for evidence.

Let me simplify the question a bit:
I take it you are an adherent of cause and effect.

By the use of only empirical evidence:
What gene (body part) CAUSES a desire to keep the self in an aware state?
What gene (body part) CAUSES an organism to become self aware?
Is there any lifeless objects that seek to increase self preservation?
What caused reality to go from none self aware matter to self aware matter?

These are the most fundamental characteristics of life.

Failure to find such evidence does not detract from the fact that organisms are self aware and desire to stay alive.

Just like gravity, we have no evidence for it outside of it's interaction with the physical world. Scientists gave the downward force known as gravity a name so why is it so wrong to give the force of self awareness a name?

The first flaw that sticks out to me in what you're trying to say could be summed up in one word. anthropomorphize.

Also you seem to fail to understand what self awareness is, and how we are able to identify it in life forms. http://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognitio...levels.pdf

There is no need for self awareness for cells to propagate and grow (or any other form of life, including us) The fact that we possess self awareness at all is irrelevant to our survival as a species or how we grow as a population.

Hopefully that helps a bit.

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
15-03-2017, 11:48 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 10:16 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 09:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Evidence is so overrated when compared to the philosophy of Logic. Here's why:

With regards to your dog being the Master of the Universe:

Is Empirical Evidence a requirement for the existence of something (scientifically speaking)?

We can tell that something exists simply by the way other things behave near the source even though we have no empirical evidence about the source.
eg. Dark Energy, Black Holes, The Self, Gravity, etc...

Empirical Evidence is not the be all & end all for existence. Forces are also evidence for the existence of something.
Self Awareness is the evidence for a soul force in the same way the law of gravity is evidence for a gravity force.

We have empirical evidence of the existence black holes, the self, gravity. Dark energy (and dark matter), not yet, but it seems we're getting there. Source: Where does dark energy come from?

But your repeated stating of "Self Awareness is the evidence for a soul" does not make it true, no matter how many times you say it. Self-awareness decreases as the level of brain activity decreases. Your logic - "Forces are also evidence for the existence of something" - puts to bed your assertion that there's a soul involved, since decrease in brain activity is directly causal to decrease in self-awareness.

If a soul were involved, brain activity would be moot.

By the way, I provided evidence that the brain is fully responsible for consciousness back in post #41.

*edit to add*

There's also this bit, which is somewhat long but is very detailed and goes into the nuts-and-bolts of why Cartesian dualism is, well, just plain wrong. The real problem

Tl; dr, from the article -
Quote:...fundamental aspects of our experiences of conscious selfhood might depend on control-oriented predictive perception of our messy physiology, of our animal blood and guts. We are conscious selves because we too are beast machines – self-sustaining flesh-bags that care about their own persistence.
What's the point of you posting hours of reading to prove a logical fallacy?
None of your articles explain what the self is, so how can you make the claim that a decrease in brain activity causes a decrease in self awareness? Environmental awareness is not Self Awareness. Blind Deaf people are no less self aware than you are.
The degree of self awareness never changes from start to finish. If you are not aware that you exist then YOU simply don't exist. Self awareness must precede any perception of reality or there is no "YOU".

Does a COD4 Gamer die when his character dies? Would you claim your friend has lost his self awareness when his character dies in the game? He will lose his game awareness for the remainder of that match, but not his self awareness.

You said "If a soul were involved, brain activity would be moot." How can you make that statement without first defining what a soul "the self" is. Too much copy pasting and too little coherency.

Please try to keep up with the argument.
Good try though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: