Brain vs soul.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2017, 03:11 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 01:47 PM)JesseB Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 01:35 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Really? What did I add? I'm always careful to use words such as if, maybe, probably & could when describing unproven stuff. If you found an "IS" somewhere then it's most likely a philosophical argument about the logic within a claim.
That's not the problem however.
I'll tell you what the problem is:
Atheists have an issue with me describing life as an unseen force because it sounds too theological, too theistic.
I'm gonna coin the phrase Theophobia soon. I swear to Spaghetti Monster I will.

Incorrect, Atheists reject the claim that life is an unseen force because there is no evidence to justify the claim, and it directly opposes demonstrable testable reality.

It's totally ok for you to say "here's an idea I like, and I can't really justify it with anything" It's really not ok to say "I like the idea of a soul or life force (as you defined it) therefor they exist. and you shouldn't oppose it because it sounds like a theistic position.

There is no phobia in it. I'm just calling you out on things that appear to be factually incorrect.

To be clear what I'm telling you is there's no such thing as a "life force" and your attempt to bridge reality to justify your usage of the term goes against everything we know about biology, and philosophy/psychology.

As far as I can see you're trying to shove a square peg in a round hole. I'm just correcting this.
I love it when people use the word IS. It's such a strong objective word.

The Soul:
They're just giving a name to something most people claim exists (the self) but cannot physically define what it is.
It's the same thing we do when we speak about gravity. We know it exists but cannot physically define what it is.

Naming unseen forces is something science does all the time. Explain what Gravity is & not what gravity does if you think i'm wrong.

The self (soul) is a subjective thing. If I wish to call the self a soul I wouldn't be wrong because the self cannot be objectively defined.

If you think the self is objective then try this thought experiment.

The year is 2100
John was an identical twin with total amneisure that donated his brain to another and was then cloned.
Which of the clones IS John & explain why.

Remember that little word "IS" I spoke about earlier, it's only good for philosophical arguments.
Materialists have no rights using it Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 03:28 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 03:11 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 01:47 PM)JesseB Wrote:  Incorrect, Atheists reject the claim that life is an unseen force because there is no evidence to justify the claim, and it directly opposes demonstrable testable reality.

It's totally ok for you to say "here's an idea I like, and I can't really justify it with anything" It's really not ok to say "I like the idea of a soul or life force (as you defined it) therefor they exist. and you shouldn't oppose it because it sounds like a theistic position.

There is no phobia in it. I'm just calling you out on things that appear to be factually incorrect.

To be clear what I'm telling you is there's no such thing as a "life force" and your attempt to bridge reality to justify your usage of the term goes against everything we know about biology, and philosophy/psychology.

As far as I can see you're trying to shove a square peg in a round hole. I'm just correcting this.
I love it when people use the word IS. It's such a strong objective word.

The Soul:
They're just giving a name to something most people claim exists (the self) but cannot physically define what it is.
It's the same thing we do when we speak about gravity. We know it exists but cannot physically define what it is.

Naming unseen forces is something science does all the time. Explain what Gravity is & not what gravity does if you think i'm wrong.

The self (soul) is a subjective thing. If I wish to call the self a soul I wouldn't be wrong because the self cannot be objectively defined.

If you think the self is objective then try this thought experiment.

The year is 2100
John was an identical twin with total amneisure that donated his brain to another and was then cloned.
Which of the clones IS John & explain why.

Remember that little word "IS" I spoke about earlier, it's only good for philosophical arguments.
Materialists have no rights using it Smile

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated, it is repeatable and falsifiable. Do you honestly not understand gravity? I state again, hours of reading would likely benefit you greatly, I highly encourage it.

The soul can not be tested or demonstrated, only asserted.

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
15-03-2017, 03:33 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 03:11 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 01:47 PM)JesseB Wrote:  Incorrect, Atheists reject the claim that life is an unseen force because there is no evidence to justify the claim, and it directly opposes demonstrable testable reality.

It's totally ok for you to say "here's an idea I like, and I can't really justify it with anything" It's really not ok to say "I like the idea of a soul or life force (as you defined it) therefor they exist. and you shouldn't oppose it because it sounds like a theistic position.

There is no phobia in it. I'm just calling you out on things that appear to be factually incorrect.

To be clear what I'm telling you is there's no such thing as a "life force" and your attempt to bridge reality to justify your usage of the term goes against everything we know about biology, and philosophy/psychology.

As far as I can see you're trying to shove a square peg in a round hole. I'm just correcting this.
I love it when people use the word IS. It's such a strong objective word.

The Soul:
They're just giving a name to something most people claim exists (the self) but cannot physically define what it is.
It's the same thing we do when we speak about gravity. We know it exists but cannot physically define what it is.

Naming unseen forces is something science does all the time. Explain what Gravity is & not what gravity does if you think i'm wrong.

The self (soul) is a subjective thing. If I wish to call the self a soul I wouldn't be wrong because the self cannot be objectively defined.

If you think the self is objective then try this thought experiment.

The year is 2100
John was an identical twin with total amneisure that donated his brain to another and was then cloned.
Which of the clones IS John & explain why.

Remember that little word "IS" I spoke about earlier, it's only good for philosophical arguments.
Materialists have no rights using it Smile

Your clone experiment seems silly, just because 2 organisms are structured identical, and operate in an identical way does not mean they share a single "person-hood" or "Identity," they do not share memories between the two (at least no example as such has been demonstrated to suggest this, and this fact alone means that they will potentially become very different as their lives go by. Which is not what a clone is anyway, they may start identical but we have the clone dolly and know that they do not continue in an identical on any biological scale way once created)

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
15-03-2017, 03:34 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 03:28 PM)JesseB Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 03:11 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I love it when people use the word IS. It's such a strong objective word.

The Soul:
They're just giving a name to something most people claim exists (the self) but cannot physically define what it is.
It's the same thing we do when we speak about gravity. We know it exists but cannot physically define what it is.

Naming unseen forces is something science does all the time. Explain what Gravity is & not what gravity does if you think i'm wrong.

The self (soul) is a subjective thing. If I wish to call the self a soul I wouldn't be wrong because the self cannot be objectively defined.

If you think the self is objective then try this thought experiment.

The year is 2100
John was an identical twin with total amneisure that donated his brain to another and was then cloned.
Which of the clones IS John & explain why.

Remember that little word "IS" I spoke about earlier, it's only good for philosophical arguments.
Materialists have no rights using it Smile

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated, it is repeatable and falsifiable. Do you honestly not understand gravity? I state again, hours of reading would likely benefit you greatly, I highly encourage it.

The soul can not be tested or demonstrated, only asserted.

"Gravity can be tested and demonstrated, it is repeatable and falsifiable." you are demonstrably wrong in your statement that materialists can't use the word IS.

Dude..... this is kinda pathetic... try harder.

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
15-03-2017, 03:42 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2017 03:54 PM by JesseB.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 02:32 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'll take my correction on closed system. Smile
It should have read open system.

Hey Mom... thought you said I can't take corrections? Thumbsup

Concerning awareness. I speak of it in very materialistic terms because it becomes a logical paradox if you refer to awareness as defined.

Dictionary.com
Awareness = Consciousness
Consciousness = Self Awareness
Paradox

I prefer to think of it as
Awareness = Having the ability to receive information
Self = A unique observer (not necessarily physical)
Self Awareness = A unique observer capable of receiving information

Therefore everything is aware, but not everything is self aware.

A Soul is then simply the identity of a self aware being.
ie. A being capable of thought.
I'm not adding to this. I haven't added to this in any way throughout this entire thread. Who knows if it's material or not. The fact remains identities exist and we haven't seen what it looks like.

If tomorrow scientists find the "Identity" cell and learn to transplant it in a rock then so be it. The rock get's a soul, but the rock isn't the soul.
If we die & still keep our identity then that's a soul.

If you take offense to your identity being classified as a Soul then I pity you because that's the name english speaking humans commonly use to describe it.
Either way a Soul is needed if we are to believe in the self.

My response to the above:
Not everything is capable of receiving or processing information. A rock is not aware. This also seems to be a gross failure to understand what the word "information" means, and imply's.

Seriously dude this post reeks of sophistry

Edit^ I have no idea what just happened to the reply function, or how to fix this. Once I figure it out I'll fix it.
Edit^ Sorta fixed.... close enough. I'm done messing with it.

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
15-03-2017, 03:45 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 03:11 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ---
The year is 2100
John was an identical twin with total amneisure that donated his brain to another and was then cloned.
Which of the clones IS John & explain why.
---

What is amneisure? Did you mean amnesia?

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
15-03-2017, 03:48 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
Jess - Go in and remove your top bracketed line - you only want AS's quote in there.

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, 04:42 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 03:11 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I love it when people use the word IS. It's such a strong objective word.

The Soul:
They're just giving a name to something most people claim exists (the self) but cannot physically define what it is.
It's the same thing we do when we speak about gravity. We know it exists but cannot physically define what it is.

Naming unseen forces is something science does all the time. Explain what Gravity is & not what gravity does if you think i'm wrong.

The self (soul) is a subjective thing. If I wish to call the self a soul I wouldn't be wrong because the self cannot be objectively defined.

If you think the self is objective then try this thought experiment.

The year is 2100
John was an identical twin with total amneisure that donated his brain to another and was then cloned.
Which of the clones IS John & explain why.

Remember that little word "IS" I spoke about earlier, it's only good for philosophical arguments.
Materialists have no rights using it Smile

Facepalm

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, 05:29 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2017 05:39 PM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(15-03-2017 05:46 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A Soul is then simply the identity of a self aware being.
ie. A being capable of thought.
I'm not adding to this. I haven't added to this in any way throughout this entire thread. Who knows if it's material or not. The fact remains identities exist and we haven't seen what it looks like.

Yet Agnostic Shane also wrote this:
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.

You introduced the second and entirely different definition for "soul" earlier in the discussion, which is in fact the correct (unequivocated) one. This definition contains the missing attributes which we object to, and which we say are denied by neuroscience, i.e., that the "soul" (or mind) is separate from the body, and that it has a separate existence. Consciousness is a brain function and can't exist without a brain. If you have never read this in all of your studies of consciousness, you've been reading the wrong books. I would suggest reading Dr. Allan Hobson's Scientific American Library book Consciousness, which explores the necessary underlying brain structures, activation, and biochemistry.

https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-J-A...ess+hobson

I personally think you should redefine the self as the body, and also redefine the "self" in the brain as the self concept only. That should clarify these issues.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thoreauvian's post
15-03-2017, 07:10 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
A bit late, but I don't care.

(15-03-2017 05:46 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(14-03-2017 10:51 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  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.

No, Shane. It's called not giving a damn about you or your opinion of me or my arguments, since you are an arrogant idiot with the reading comprehension of a kindergarten student and the memory span of a goldfish.

I am not interested in engaging with you. You are not worth the time. I am here only to point out that you are wrong, and trivially so, and that anyone with access to Google and five seconds' free time to spend searching the relevant terms can prove you to be so.

I am here, in fact, to throw peanuts at the dancing idiot.

(15-03-2017 05:46 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I google it & I have been studying consciousness for years.

I'm sure you think you have.

Unfortunately, you are 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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: