Drich Wrote:

LadyForCamus Wrote:Yeah, good point.  Let's work on a definition before we can even talk about evidence in favor of such a thing.

Did you not read the article?

That was the primary take way from it, was a defination the article gives coinsides/works with the 2007 Theory of Biocentrism. The old term 'soul' is being described in the theory as it's primary biological life force. It is conscientiousness. 

That is your definition. This theory explains makes an attempt to account for Conscientiousness as a product of biology. which Robert Lanza, M.D., the currently Chief Scientific Officer at the Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

For the purpose of this article drew parallels with His/our understanding of the word soul.

Both you and bobbie-value want to poo poo on this topic without doing any of the leg work.. Intellectual dishonesty anyone? How about a side of closed minded laziness?

Conscientiousness is being careful and thorough in your responsibilities. I think you meant 'consciousness'. If you define 'soul' as a synonym for 'consciousness', you have thrown out the part where it can exist apart from the brain. Additionally, there is no evidence for a 'life force' and biocentrism is a pet notion of Dr. Lanza's, not a scientific theory in the sense of: 'a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.' 

Speaking of fallacies, if you think Lanza being an MD makes him credible, that would be an argument from inappropriate authority. He has no particular credentials that would allow him to have an expert opinion on the existence of souls. He draws on science that he isn't qualified to analyze (quantum physics) to reach conclusions that his field isn't qualified to address (the existence of life force or souls).

Do you think all a soul is, is consciousness; without reference to surviving the body after death? If not, it's rather intellectually dishonest of you to bring in Lanza's speculations as if they supported your belief in an immaterial soul that preserves your consciousness after death.

And what's intellectually lazy is grabbing any article that you think is on your side instead of troubling yourself to look for one that is peer reviewed, or even one that actually presents the evidence you're trying to say exists. On the other hand, you may have looked for one diligently, failed to find it, and presented this extremely weak substitute for actual evidence; in which case you're not lazy, just dishonest.

(September 8, 2016 at 9:31 am)Drich Wrote:

(September 7, 2016 at 12:34 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Doing the leg work . . . like reading Lanza's philosophical forebears like Descartes, Kant, Berkeley, and Bergson (especially Bergson)? Yeah, I'm sure you're well acquainted with the tradition Lanza apes in his "theory".

'Conscientiousness' would have involved your having done such leg work before swallowing this tripe. Intellectual dishonesty anyone?

Then again, conscientiousness might also have led you to the realization that you're not trying to write 'conscientiousness' but 'consciousness'.

Who are you trying to fool?

How easy is it to simply one up a poster by googling just a little bit deeper than what is posted?

That's what you did, but that is not what I did.

I found a scientifically based theory that somewhat incorporates a religious concept. Then call people out for being intellectually dishonest when ever they only want to speak from a position of authority, of the religious component negatively, and not make themselves aware of the scientific aspects.

How is that different than what you did? I provided A and B aspects to an argument, and call out those who only speak to A for being intellectually dishonest if they refuse to acknowledge or even educate themselves on the "b" side of the argument before they speak.

You are calling me for not knowing the entomology of A and B Intellectually dishonest.

Nice try sport, but no. Maybe if you didnt get so worked up over how a word was spell-t you could take a little more time framing out how they are used, then someone like me couldn't take you to task for the intellectual dishonesty built into your fallacy of faulty comparison arguement.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...Comparison

(I know that is the sleepy emoji, but he looks smug to me/that is what I'm going for.)

Yeah, nice try yourself. Philosophy was one of my double majors back in the day. I have read each of the authors I mentioned. In fact, it didn't require a google search to see where this was going. I hadn't heard of 'Biocentrism' prior to reading your link, but I hadn't got more than a couple of paragraphs into it before I flashed on Bergson and the obvious similarities.

Oh, and entomology? 

SteveII Wrote:

SerenelyBlue Wrote:There are many reasons why I don't believe in Christianity.  The one that makes the most sense is that there is no soul.  Without a soul there is no heaven, hell or anything to do wit spirit.

There iw no use for a soul.  Modern science is showing that the brain is responsible for all the functions human bodies have.  I evolved into a complex individual, but when my brain ceases to work, I cease to exist.  Christianity is just myth and superstition.

Do you agree?

No, I don't agree. Your position is that there is no soul (not simply agnostic about it). How do you know this? Modern science has not explain the mind or consciousness let alone how it evolved. Since humans are designed to naturally believe in the supernatural, we therefore have an intuition about a soul. Seems to me that on one side of the scale you have no scientific knowledge in which to make a determination and on the other side of the scale, we have a fairly universal intuition that one exists. So, if you can't defend you premise there is no soul, then your conclusion therefore '...there is no heaven... and ...Christianity is just a myth' is unsupported and just an opinion.

Not believing in a soul is justified by the lack of evidence where one would expect there to be evidence if it existed. Damage to the brain can change your opinions...and your religious beliefs. Deep sedation can completely deprive you of awareness (though unfortunately, not always). The onus is on people who claim a soul exists to demonstrated its existence.

Modern science has told us more about the mind or consciousness and how it evolved than have ancient intuitions.  It's a bit of a double standard to require an explanation from science that explains every jot and tittle of what goes on in our brains while accepting 'God did it' as an 'explanation' for the same thing.

The evidence says that humans were designed by evolution (figuratively speaking) to err on the side of ascribing agency to events as a matter of safety (better to lean towards a sabertooth making that rustling sound instead of the wind, the consequences of being wrong about it being the wind are more dire). Our 'intuition about the soul' likely derives from the experience of dreaming; in which it subjectively seems like we go places and do things even though our bodies are still. That's not an intuition, it's a conclusion based on observation, culturally reinforced. The conclusion is incorrect because it derives from an incorrect understanding of what is actually happening when we dream: dreams happen in our brains, and we don't actually leave our bodies while we sleep.  

You're a fine one to talk about other people's positions being unsupported.

Drich Wrote:

Quote:Your logic is defective.

 My "logic" concerning this specific topic has nothing to do with God, religion or the bible. It has to do with this article, The Well respected doctor who wrote it and the Theory of Biocentrism.  
Now, by your wild accusations it seems you haven't actually taken any time to research the subject being discussed, nor considered the actual evidence being provided by the article nor the theory of biocentrism..

If you still take issue with my 'logic' know Your problem is with 'science' and not religion.

Quote:Christianity is myth and superstition.  There is no proof of a god's hand in this universe.  Give me proof.  Your article gives no proof of the soul and I can guarantee you have no proof of the BibleGod.  
Don't give me crap sprayed with aerosol and tell me it is truth.  That is what Christian apologists do.

Sent from my SM-T116 using Tapatalk

Red herring/moot points as again the article provides source references that do indeed provide you with the information you claim you are looking for.

I applaud your use of scare quotes when referring to your 'logic'. It's refreshingly honest.

Appealing to how well-respected the doctor is to support your position is an argument from inappropriate authority. Lanza is not respected in the medical or scientific community for his work in 'proving' souls exist. And 'biocentrism' does not deserve to be called a 'theory', because it has not come remotely close to earning that status. It's generous to even call it 'hypothesis' because there's no way to test it. It's a speculation.

Would you specify what 'wild accusations' SerenelyBlue has made? I seem to have missed any statements by SerenelyBlue that could be reasonably construed as such, and I've read the whole thread.

None of the sources referenced in the blog post you're referring to reveal any evidence that points to a soul in the sense of something that can exist outside of a brain. We're all already aware that consciousness exists, being able to directly observe it within ourselves, which is kind of what consciousness is.

Drich Wrote:

Quote:I found a scientifically based theory that somewhat incorporates a religious concept. Then call people out for being intellectually dishonest when ever they only want to speak from a position of authority, of the religious component negatively, and not make themselves aware of the scientific aspects.

How is that different than what you did? I provided A and B aspects to an argument, and call out those who only speak to A for being intellectually dishonest if they refuse to acknowledge or even educate themselves on the "b" side of the argument before they speak.

You are calling me for not knowing the entomology of A and B Intellectually dishonest.

Nice try sport, but no. Maybe if you didnt get so worked up over how a word was spell-t you could take a little more time framing out how they are used, then someone like me couldn't take you to task for the intellectual dishonesty built into your fallacy of faulty comparison arguement.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...Comparison

You found a speculation loosely based on science and credited it with actually being a scientific theory. Then you showed your ass in all directions because you're not even capable of understanding why you're wrong, apparently.

I'll leave the 'entomology' bit alone, since apparently pointing out that you've used the wrong word or misspelled the one you intended to use causes you to have a little meltdown.

(September 8, 2016 at 10:06 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Drich Wrote:Despite what your peers say (logical fallacy: "Ad populum" ) Phycology says there is indeed a soul:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bio...e-says-yes

So No I do not agree

I follow the evidence not popular thought to identify fact, you might want to give that a try.

In order to commit a fallacy, you have to use it in an argument, which SerenelyBlue did not. Thanks for beginning your post with a complete irrelevancy.

Check the definition sport. (or are you just trying to make me abide by how you personally define words?) A logical fallacy is coming to a result or premise based on faulty reasoning. In this case (of the OP) the logical fallacy: "Ad populum" is identified because the OP is verifying or validating his beliefs by the qualifying question "do you agree?" To validate belief based on what the majority would say on an atheist web site is seeking or playing to the popular prevailing thought. Which is "faulty reasoning."

The term "logical fallacy" refers to the concept of making an error in terms of reasoning. It is crucial to understand logical fallacies so that they can be identified and avoided when attempting to persuade.
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examp...llacy.html

Seems to me you made a factual error, that is you assigned the definition of "informal fallacy" (which is a TYPE of logical fallacy) to the term "logical fallacy."
"Informal Fallacy – This is an inductive argument. "

Quote:Phycology is the scientific study of algae.

Again, maybe if you guys could remove the stick up you butts about how words were used, I or someone like me couldn't then take said stick from you and beat/verbally whip you with the words you are correcting. Or are you going to try and sell some more 'logical fallacy' to me?

Quote:An opinion blog post in Psychology Today is not peer-reviewed medical research (and the author seems to be another Chopra type claiming quantum weirdness=eternal soul).

You are 1/2 right. Physiology Today is considered a magazine, but with the caveat: "its intent is to make psychology literature more accessible to the general public. The magazine focuses on behavior and covers a range of topics including psychology, neuroscience, relationships, sexuality, parenting, health (including from the perspectives of alternative medicine), work,[3] and the psychological aspects of current affairs.[1]"
According to it's wiki page, the authors of said articles are written a wide variety of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, medical doctors, anthropologists, sociologists, and science journalists. In following it's mission statement peer reviewed articles are indeed apart of every single issue.

Quote:Anyone who read your post and the linked blog post and believed it knows less now than they would have if they had skipped it. Your claim to follow the evidence is completely laughable, you don't even seem to know what evidence of a soul would be. Hint: 'we don't understand something' or 'we don't understand everything' does not mean 'souls are realz!'.

Do you?? Do you have any idea of what evidence of a soul would be? To describe its basic attribute according to this article it is an intangible consciousnesses. Science can not explain self awareness, or identify a physical cause for it. Which is what the theory of Biocentrism does, and all this article does is borrow the term soul from religion and apply it to the theory as it seems to be what it is the theory is describing

IF you took time to read the article you'd note that it was focused On defining what a soul is, and how it fits into the larger theory of Biocenterism.

Quote:I'll have more respect for you if it turns out you didn't even read the blog post and just grabbed the first thing on the internet that sounded 'sciencey' that you thought supported your position. If you read it and thought it was really evidence in your favor, that's just sad.

And I'd have more respect for you if you would simply acknowledge that you are not the fulcrum from which every scientific argument must be weighed. Meaning you did not feel the need to alpha/bully those who do not follow the same path as you do. Maybe one day you will have enough 'hair on your sack' to understand that no one has a complete lock on truth, that in your world of 'theory and evidence' there are no absolutes only best guesses. And to defend your 'best guess' as truth against someone elses 'best guess' is beyond foolish.

But since I did not simply look for a sciencie article and you will never see your best guess' as anything more than absolute truth (till the "Ad populum" consensus says other wise,) we are both destined to be disappointed with each other.

But the thing is I'm good with that. I CAN live and let live. I don't need you to subscribe to what I believe or why. I am good with whatever fate you choose for yourself. Where as you guys tend to act like rabid dogs when someone does not fall in with what and why you believe what you believe.

(September 8, 2016 at 10:21 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Drich Wrote:How is the article "dumb" specifically? Or are you just defaulting to another logical fallacy? Argumentum ad lapidem
(sweeping dismissal without cause)
Am I detecting a pattern of behavior?

Riddle me this sport, if you have to use fallacious reasoning to maintain your position.. what does it generally say about what you believe?

I'm glad you're studying logical fallacies, Drich; but you still have a little ways to go before your understanding of them is likely to be sufficient to try to use them for analyzing other people's statements. For example, the whole concept of fallacious reasoning doesn't apply to statements that aren't arguments.

If SerenelyBlue had argued that the article isn't correct because 'it's dumb', the fallacy would have been committed. Judging the article to be dumb is just presenting an opinion. You can't call 'fallacy!' on the reaction 'That's absurd!'. It has to be part of an argument. SerenelyBlue would have made the fallacy if the conversation went like this:

SerenelyBlue: That is a dumb article.
Drich: Why do you think it's dumb?
SerenelyBlue: Because it's obviously dumb!

See the defination above sport.

You are confusing the defination of an informal fallacy (which is contingent on an argument) verse a logical fallacy which is a failed/illogical thought or thinking process.

The informal fallacy is the verbal execution of failure of logical understanding or comprehension.

The OP Failed in his base logic chain. He provided a position/thoughts concerning the topic, then sought to verify with a peer consensus. This is not how logic works. This would be a failure of logic, and a deferment to peer review. Which is fallacious reasoning

So no thanks tom hanks sell you crap to someone else.

(September 8, 2016 at 10:34 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Drich Wrote:Did you not read the article?

That was the primary take way from it, was a defination the article gives coinsides/works with the 2007 Theory of Biocentrism. The old term 'soul' is being described in the theory as it's primary biological life force. It is conscientiousness. 

That is your definition. This theory explains makes an attempt to account for Conscientiousness as a product of biology. which Robert Lanza, M.D., the currently Chief Scientific Officer at the Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

For the purpose of this article drew parallels with His/our understanding of the word soul.

Both you and bobbie-value want to poo poo on this topic without doing any of the leg work.. Intellectual dishonesty anyone? How about a side of closed minded laziness?

Conscientiousness is being careful and thorough in your responsibilities. I think you meant 'consciousness'. If you define 'soul' as a synonym for 'consciousness', you have thrown out the part where it can exist apart from the brain. Additionally, there is no evidence for a 'life force' and biocentrism is a pet notion of Dr. Lanza's, not a scientific theory in the sense of: 'a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.' 

I see someone is begging for another 'stick whoop'n'

Riddle me this sport... If I am invalidated by simply clicking "correct all" on my spell check rather than going word by word, what does it say about you, when the 'invalidated/dismissed' person corrects you by providing links/proof to your misuse of words, phases and whole precepts? :hmm:

Quote:Speaking of fallacies, if you think Lanza being an MD makes him credible, that would be an argument from inappropriate authority.

Not me sport, Phycology Today Thinks His alphabet soup makes him credible?

Quote:He has no particular credentials that would allow him to have an expert opinion on the existence of souls.

Tell me your not this stupid, Or is it your hope your peers are???
What would make anyone a credentialed expert on a subject that science has failed to classify? How can one be an expert on a soul if souls can't be measured?

Quote:He draws on science that he isn't qualified to analyze (quantum physics) to reach conclusions that his field isn't qualified to address (the existence of life force or souls).

So... Souls have been identified by quantum Physics now?? Or are you saying He is not allowed to take a term like soul and simple describe how it fits a much larger principle? Isn't that what All teachers do? Or are you saying His modified description of the word soul is wrong? if so how? How does it misrepresent any portion of Biocenterism?

Quote:Do you think all a soul is, is consciousness; without reference to surviving the body after death?

You didn't read the theory of Bio centrism did you? For the sake of this argument "science" in the form of the theory of bio centrism says the consciousness can survive death.

Quote: If not, it's rather intellectually dishonest of you to bring in Lanza's speculations as if they supported your belief in an immaterial soul that preserves your consciousness after death.

Again no, as I do not have to have to know or in this case claim to know with absolute certainty the nature of the soul. The discussion centers around disproving that all of 'science' refutes the notion of a soul. I've simply intorduced (via Lanza and this article) that all of 'science' does not discredit the idea of a soul.

At no point did I say nor do I have to 'pledge myself' to what is said here. I am simply showing contrasting views in "all mighty science."

Quote:And what's intellectually lazy is grabbing any article that you think is on your side instead of troubling yourself to look for one that is peer reviewed, or even one that actually presents the evidence you're trying to say exists. On the other hand, you may have looked for one diligently, failed to find it, and presented this extremely weak substitute for actual evidence; in which case you're not lazy, just dishonest.

What is lazy (period) is assuming i took the first thing that came up and formulating all the crap you have without asking question 1.

This is not my first thread that uses this article. I've used it at least in another maybe two other threads the same way. Maybe you ought to ask a few question gather some information before you 'invade poland' next time. (rather than assume the pollock jokes are all true.)

(September 8, 2016 at 10:47 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(September 8, 2016 at 9:31 am)Drich Wrote: Who are you trying to fool?

How easy is it to simply one up a poster by googling just a little bit deeper than what is posted?

That's what you did, but that is not what I did.

I found a scientifically based theory that somewhat incorporates a religious concept. Then call people out for being intellectually dishonest when ever they only want to speak from a position of authority, of the religious component negatively, and not make themselves aware of the scientific aspects.

How is that different than what you did? I provided A and B aspects to an argument, and call out those who only speak to A for being intellectually dishonest if they refuse to acknowledge or even educate themselves on the "b" side of the argument before they speak.

You are calling me for not knowing the entomology of A and B Intellectually dishonest.

Nice try sport, but no. Maybe if you didnt get so worked up over how a word was spell-t you could take a little more time framing out how they are used, then someone like me couldn't take you to task for the intellectual dishonesty built into your fallacy of faulty comparison arguement.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...Comparison

(I know that is the sleepy emoji, but he looks smug to me/that is what I'm going for.)

Yeah, nice try yourself. Philosophy was one of my double majors back in the day. I have read each of the authors I mentioned. In fact, it didn't require a google search to see where this was going. I hadn't heard of 'Biocentrism' prior to reading your link, but I hadn't got more than a couple of paragraphs into it before I flashed on Bergson and the obvious similarities.

Oh, and entomology? 

Being a 'double major' you'd think you'd be a little better at this..

Maybe I should explain what 'this' is since your education seems to be limiting your cognitive abilities.

"This" would be identifying and addressing the primary point of an argument rather than, trying to red herring yourself into a victory by concentrating on a tertiary aspect of an argument (Where I guessed you sourced information) rather than the correct application of the very same information in a logical contextual way..

Just incase that was too technical for you or any of your followers, I am calling you stupid because you cant seem to see the Forrest, because there are too many trees blocking your view. More specifically with all your 'education' you seemed to miss the point. You focused on where you got the information from (your studies) rather than my guess of google, and because of this you claimed a premature victory with your emoji. When in fact you complete skirted the primary point (outside of my etymology joke)

get it now?

Sure, I get it. You referenced an article about a "theory" that doesn't rise to the level of theory (and arguably not even a scientific hypothesis) and that provides no evidence for its speculations. Yet you want to cite it as evidence that "science" doesn't rule out the possibility of a soul, however ill-defined 'soul' may be, and you decline to take any responsibility for providing anything like a workable definition that might be fruitful in a scientific context.

Yeah, I get it just fine.