Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
@Gae Bolga
I'll attempt and answer to your 3 questions
I agree that natural features aren't a necessity for any non-natural experiencer, I just don't see them as being mutually exclusive especially by function. I even expressly stated that phenomenal senses aren't necessarily present in ghosts. Should we throw up the classic platonic example of seeing yourself in a mirror with no head, or body. Your body sees and your soul can see. The problem is the "We" you define is a materialist "we", and your statement is wrong. "We", as physical selves, do need eyes to see. I'm just stating that a soul might also see in function without the same physical machinations necessary for the realist. So maybe that's the reason behind you're meaningful tag on non-natural? It might not be meaningfully non-natural, while in a state; but in an eternal state or in an eternal realm it becomes critically meaningful. Are you heading down the path of People have eyes to see, ghost's don't have eyes so they can't see, ...?
I do believe in "this because I believe in that" and it does actually "fit my beliefs about the nature of the all" as I have probed thus far. Not because it's a rationalization bigger than I believe in this because this experientially seems valid and answers more questions than idk, but I'm willing to explore other positions and pokes at your leisure.
My understanding of God is that He is of one substance.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
tackattack Wrote:I'm just stating that a soul might also see in function without the same physical machinations necessary for the realist.
But how can that soul really be you? How can you say that some immaterial soul is the same person as you? Since all your memories and your thoughts are stored within your brain, and you can lose them if your brain is damaged, that soul doesn't have your memories and your thoughts and it's not really you. A person is, in philosophy, usually defined with the Locke's definition as a psychological continuity.
January 29, 2020 at 2:37 pm (This post was last modified: January 29, 2020 at 3:00 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(January 29, 2020 at 2:00 pm)tackattack Wrote: @Gae Bolga
I'll attempt and answer to your 3 questions
I agree that natural features aren't a necessity for any non-natural experiencer, I just don't see them as being mutually exclusive especially by function.
You've explicitly defined them as such, but don't genuinely hold that belief, as I mentioned at the outset. The non natural cannot be natural, by definition.
Quote:I even expressly stated that phenomenal senses aren't necessarily present in ghosts. Should we throw up the classic platonic example of seeing yourself in a mirror with no head, or body. Your body sees and your soul can see. The problem is the "We" you define is a materialist "we", and your statement is wrong. "We", as physical selves, do need eyes to see. I'm just stating that a soul might also see in function without the same physical machinations necessary for the realist. So maybe that's the reason behind you're meaningful tag on non-natural? It might not be meaningfully non-natural, while in a state; but in an eternal state or in an eternal realm it becomes critically meaningful. Are you heading down the path of People have eyes to see, ghost's don't have eyes so they can't see, ...?
Are phenomenal senses present in ndes, when the non natural soul leaves the body? It seems to me like you couldn't genuinely claim that you don't know or don't believe that they are. You mentioned them being common and specific. You hold these experiences up as evidence. Stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Quote:I do believe in "this because I believe in that" and it does actually "fit my beliefs about the nature of the all" as I have probed thus far. Not because it's a rationalization bigger than I believe in this because this experientially seems valid and answers more questions than idk, but I'm willing to explore other positions and pokes at your leisure.
My understanding of God is that He is of one substance.
Is there anything in the universe that isn't of god.... which is of one substance?
You've got this all sorts of wrong. I'm not arguing your assertions or poking holes in those assertions. I'm suggesting that you've created a situation where things that you -define- as non natural are, in fact, natural. That you know this. That you are not arguing in good faith. In a world where there is a soul, and where that soul is supernatural, and where it goes on NDE trips that have sensory content, there might still be things that you think are soul..which are in fact something else. Something natural, like a brain.
Wouldn't you agree? Would you like to take a look and see if those things actually fit your own description of the supernatural, soul, and ndes...? If we don't need eyes to see, then does the soul as seat of consciousness need ghost eyes to see..or is this also an example of a trick being played? Why do blind people go blind, in fact, if we don't need eyes to see? Has their soul gone blind?
Maybe this will help. I contend that the soul is the seat of consciousness. I contend that the soul is supernatural. I contend that feeling pressure is, thusly, a non natural phenomena. Since this phenomena is created by motor sensors in the skin and receptors in the brain..I declare fingertips supernatural. They're producing the content, and we've defined the content as supernatural.
What say you? Is my middle finger non natural but natural in a sense?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
January 30, 2020 at 8:15 am (This post was last modified: January 30, 2020 at 8:15 am by FlatAssembler.)
tackattack Wrote:Your body sees and your soul can see.
Doesn't it seem to you that soul being able to see would break the laws of physics? Soul can't be seen or detected by measuring electromagnetic radiation, right? Then, it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic radiation, it doesn't interact with the photons. So, how can it see? What do you think would happen if an immaterial soul controlled the double-slit experiment with photons, would it be able to tell which hole each photon goes through without affecting the results of the experiment? The concept of an immaterial soul seeing seems very incoherent now, doesn't it?
tackattack Wrote:I'm just stating that a soul might also see in function without the same physical machinations necessary for the realist.
But how can that soul really be you? How can you say that some immaterial soul is the same person as you? Since all your memories and your thoughts are stored within your brain, and you can lose them if your brain is damaged, that soul doesn't have your memories and your thoughts and it's not really you. A person is, in philosophy, usually defined with the Locke's definition as a psychological continuity.
(January 30, 2020 at 8:15 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:
tackattack Wrote:Your body sees and your soul can see.
Doesn't it seem to you that soul being able to see would break the laws of physics? Soul can't be seen or detected by measuring electromagnetic radiation, right? Then, it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic radiation, it doesn't interact with the photons. So, how can it see? What do you think would happen if an immaterial soul controlled the double-slit experiment with photons, would it be able to tell which hole each photon goes through without affecting the results of the experiment? The concept of an immaterial soul seeing seems very incoherent now, doesn't it?
And now, we start muddling definitions. I suppose that would be dependent on what you define as "you". As a presumed materialist I assume your definition of you is the sum of your physical parts and their functions. As a dualist my definition would be the sum of the parts and their functions (physical or otherwise). Or to reference Locke "two thinking Substances may make but one Person."It's simply that we're attempting to define that other substance and how it thinks.
Your brain does store memories and thoughts. They can be lost if brain is damaged. Hence the reason for NDEs. If thoughts can form without brain activity, then perhaps it's just a HDD not the computer and the computer has a BIOS.
No, a soul being able to see doesn't break any laws. It's a function. "We" physically see (function) with physical eyes (measurable, quantifiable, sensory). An other "We" that (for this conversation) we call Soul may have the same function of seeing just with different methods. Much like blind people being able to imagine objects or "see" with their other senses.
(January 29, 2020 at 2:37 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:
(January 29, 2020 at 2:00 pm)tackattack Wrote: @Gae Bolga
I'll attempt and answer to your 3 questions
I agree that natural features aren't a necessity for any non-natural experiencer, I just don't see them as being mutually exclusive especially by function.
You've explicitly defined them as such, but don't genuinely hold that belief, as I mentioned at the outset. The non natural cannot be natural, by definition.
Quote:I even expressly stated that phenomenal senses aren't necessarily present in ghosts. Should we throw up the classic platonic example of seeing yourself in a mirror with no head, or body. Your body sees and your soul can see. The problem is the "We" you define is a materialist "we", and your statement is wrong. "We", as physical selves, do need eyes to see. I'm just stating that a soul might also see in function without the same physical machinations necessary for the realist. So maybe that's the reason behind you're meaningful tag on non-natural? It might not be meaningfully non-natural, while in a state; but in an eternal state or in an eternal realm it becomes critically meaningful. Are you heading down the path of People have eyes to see, ghost's don't have eyes so they can't see, ...?
Are phenomenal senses present in ndes, when the non natural soul leaves the body? It seems to me like you couldn't genuinely claim that you don't know or don't believe that they are. You mentioned them being common and specific. You hold these experiences up as evidence. Stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Quote:I do believe in "this because I believe in that" and it does actually "fit my beliefs about the nature of the all" as I have probed thus far. Not because it's a rationalization bigger than I believe in this because this experientially seems valid and answers more questions than idk, but I'm willing to explore other positions and pokes at your leisure.
My understanding of God is that He is of one substance.
Is there anything in the universe that isn't of god.... which is of one substance?
You've got this all sorts of wrong. I'm not arguing your assertions or poking holes in those assertions. I'm suggesting that you've created a situation where things that you -define- as non natural are, in fact, natural. That you know this. That you are not arguing in good faith. In a world where there is a soul, and where that soul is supernatural, and where it goes on NDE trips that have sensory content, there might still be things that you think are soul..which are in fact something else. Something natural, like a brain.
Wouldn't you agree? Would you like to take a look and see if those things actually fit your own description of the supernatural, soul, and ndes...? If we don't need eyes to see, then does the soul as seat of consciousness need ghost eyes to see..or is this also an example of a trick being played? Why do blind people go blind, in fact, if we don't need eyes to see? Has their soul gone blind?
Maybe this will help. I contend that the soul is the seat of consciousness. I contend that the soul is supernatural. I contend that feeling pressure is, thusly, a non natural phenomena. Since this phenomena is created by motor sensors in the skin and receptors in the brain..I declare fingertips supernatural. They're producing the content, and we've defined the content as supernatural.
What say you? Is my middle finger non natural but natural in a sense?
OK I believe I'm seeing your point. As I referenced above, the method with which a soul sees could very clearly be natural, thus making souls natural and not supernatural. As a theist, I do contend that a soul is natural being created by God. In a world where there is a soul, and where that soul is posited yet unknown, and where it goes on NDE trips that have sensory content, there might still be things that I think are soul which are in fact natural, like a brain. As a substance dualist I de believe that the mind and body are distinct and separable. I'm not sure if a pluralist would be a better definition of my stance in that because I'm not sure how deep I can dive into Aristotle's hylomorphism in 15-30 minutes at a time. But if we can keep it cursory and simple enough for me I'd be happy to continue exploring. If you think I was double-talking, it wasn't my intent and I hope this clarifies better.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
January 30, 2020 at 4:44 pm (This post was last modified: January 30, 2020 at 4:57 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
No, the method in which a soul sees can't be natural, you've defined them as non natural.
..Or natural
......Or non natural
............Or natural
Honestly....? Pick a lane Tack, lol.
This is a requirement of your own insistence. I'm suggesting that you are, in fact, wrong...just as you concede you may be. That was my point. I see, above, that you've floated the notion that a brain might merely be a hard drive. We know this to be untrue. You know this to be untrue. You continue to argue in bad faith. Perhaps you merely believe in bad faith, with conflicted articles of that faith? Whatever the case, and whatever it is that makes you post this stuff, we will not be having a fact free conversation, you and I. You'll have to go elsewhere for that. You contended that "soul", a non natural whatsits, was the best explanation for
So far, you've failed to establish that "soul" is an explanation for six of those eight things. Saying "We have a soul" doesn't explain mind or how we have qualia or qualitative consciousness. It doesn't even make the attempt. "We have a soul" adds no information to any dispute between determinism and free will. A soul may be determined, a soulless creature may be free. Morality?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
tackattack Wrote:I assume your definition of you is the sum of your physical parts and their functions.
No, my definition of "me" would be my thoughts and ideas, my psychological continuity. My dead body will not be me in any meaningful way. Similarly, a soul that doesn't have my thoughts and ideas (and the bible says in Ecclesiates 9:5 that souls of dead people don't remember who they were in earthly life), that soul also isn't me in any meaningful way.
tackattack Wrote:Soul may have the same function of seeing just with different methods. Much like blind people being able to imagine objects or "see" with their other senses.
Which senses can an immaterial soul have that don't break the laws of physics? It can't have a sense of vision since it doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation (it can't be seen or detected by measuring electromagnetic radiation), and being able to see without interfering the photons would break the laws of quantum mechanics. Similarly, it can't have a sense of hearing, because that requires interacting with the air, and it would thus be detectible. Obviously, a soul can't have a sense of touch, since it's immaterial...
Here are a couple of thoughts that I recently had.
There are some christians who believe that it's possible that a god made the universe as we currently know it, 6000 years ago.
An atheist might then argue, "Well then, if you want to hold that view, let's say a god made the universe as we know it, this morning when I woke up."
I'll take things a step further and say that a god creates the universe as I take my last breath, therefore I am the same as a new born baby. I haven't had the opportunity to commit any sin and any memories I have of any actions that supposedly happened in the past are simply things god put in my mind.
And if a soul of mine should exist, it cannot be judged because I haven't done anything.
Alternatively, as an atheist, I don't believe that souls or gods exist, but what if upon my death as a human being, a god then creates a soul with my memories and personality.
Brand new soul can't be judged. It hasn't done anything.
Both of these concepts, imaginary as they might be , completely side step any irrational fear of hell or being judged.
Insanity - Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result
(January 31, 2020 at 7:26 am)Rahn127 Wrote: Here are a couple of thoughts that I recently had.
There are some christians who believe that it's possible that a god made the universe as we currently know it, 6000 years ago.
An atheist might then argue, "Well then, if you want to hold that view, let's say a god made the universe as we know it, this morning when I woke up."
I'll take things a step further and say that a god creates the universe as I take my last breath, therefore I am the same as a new born baby. I haven't had the opportunity to commit any sin and any memories I have of any actions that supposedly happened in the past are simply things god put in my mind.
And if a soul of mine should exist, it cannot be judged because I haven't done anything.
Alternatively, as an atheist, I don't believe that souls or gods exist, but what if upon my death as a human being, a god then creates a soul with my memories and personality.
Brand new soul can't be judged. It hasn't done anything.
Both of these concepts, imaginary as they might be , completely side step any irrational fear of hell or being judged.
There are plenty (although probably no longer a majority) of Christians who adhere to the notion of ‘the sins of the father’, especially as expressed in the concept of original sin. So, it doesn’t much matter whether you personally have sinned - your soul is automatically pre-judged based on Adam’s disobedience.
Judging and punishing the personally innocent may not be just or logical, but it is and always has been part and parcel Christian theology.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
