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!
1-Gravity is a poor qanalogy as we all experience it in the same way and it is independently verifiable and objectively true. Souls are not.
2- We do agree.
3- But the conceptual does not exist without the physical. The idea of for example the existence of 'thought of an apple', 'numbers' and 'logic' existing without material minds to instantiate them, or the frameworks in which they operate, is a bizarre concept that would need explanation. These are inventions of humanity and to ask if they exist within their frameworks (eg numbers in a math framework) is a trivial question where the answer is of course yes. But outside of those frameworks (invented by physical human minds) they do NOT exist in any sense. They have no independent instantiation within the universe.
4-People believed in gravity before they could measure it, because everyone experienced it in the same way. Not the case with 'immaterial' experience in all its forms. There are lots of subjective personal experiences, all of which cannot be true, but all of which can be false and subject to confirmation bias and wish thinking.
5- Equally interesting. Why would they not have the same opportunities as the human animal? How do the animals achieve their level of intelligence and personalities without souls?
6-Yes I did get it. But unfortunately souls are in the same category as aliens, crop circles, crystal healing etc for me. Obviously not for thee
7-Consider the water > wine miracle. The qunatity and quality of water, then subsequently wine was measurable from an apparent supernatural miracle. It would also have been possible to devise controls such that all possible natural means of making the miracle 'appear' were eliminated, or if attempted caught in the act. I would contend it is therefore possible to measure the impact of the supernatural, its just never been done; which is one of the reasons why its probably not true.
1- Fair enough, bad analogy. Here's another analogy. Close your eyes, you know what position your arm is in and can relate and visualize that in the surrounding environment. You can sense whether you're leaning sitting or laying, whether you're off balance. These are completely subjective measurements. Yet they are senses that exceed the materialistically based 5 senses. They can be manipulated from the physical, and can influence how we interact with the material world, but in and of themselves are insubstantial. Some like the sense of time require nothing more than the brain being “on”. I would lump the soul in with them and other abstract concepts like math and reason, except for there have been cases that defy a materialist explanation. Certainly requires further investigation by the scientific community. What would then be your explanation for NDE that have key common elements? Or actual brain death, yet retaining an irreducible self identity? For now though, I’m content to enjoy the “magic show”.
3- To claim that they are sole inventions of humanity would require support. Can horses count? Does the squirrel realize that 2 nuts are better than one (insert crazy theist joke here)?I do have further comments on frameworks, but I’ll wait for these answers first (and I’m about to go to sleep)
4- If you factor in some degree of bias because of the subjectivity of the observance why couldn’t they all be true or at least indicative? ref By no means completely scientific proof, but would this be indicative that a consistency of elements (regardless of religious background or lack thereof) and no plausible biological explanation for the brain’s recording of events during apparent no activity (or at least no response from outside input) that an explanation would be outside of explainable biology?
5- Intelligence and personalities are attainable (and quite a separate subject) with or without a soul. I never defined a soul as any of those aspects. While a squirrel may be able to count, and apes can show empathy and dolphins …etc. I think recent research show some animal showing signs of reasoning. Do any of them have an irreducible sense of self. There’s no way to effectively communicate (TMK) to find out if they have any experiences after death, but if they could that would be another question.
7- I contend that there is probably it’s probably possible to measure the impact of the supernatural (which would then become natural- just incomplete in our level of understanding of it) as well. I’ll think more on it and go at this again tomorrow/ tonight whatever.
"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
(March 11, 2011 at 11:13 am)tackattack Wrote: 1- Fair enough, bad analogy. Here's another analogy. Close your eyes, you know what position your arm is in and can relate and visualize that in the surrounding environment. You can sense whether you're leaning sitting or laying, whether you're off balance. These are completely subjective measurements. Yet they are senses that exceed the materialistically based 5 senses. They can be manipulated from the physical, and can influence how we interact with the material world, but in and of themselves are insubstantial. Some like the sense of time require nothing more than the brain being “on”. I would lump the soul in with them and other abstract concepts like math and reason, except for there have been cases that defy a materialist explanation. Certainly requires further investigation by the scientific community. What would then be your explanation for NDE that have key common elements? Or actual brain death, yet retaining an irreducible self identity? For now though, I’m content to enjoy the “magic show”.
It goes beyond the five materialistic senses? Even touch? Even the nerves that tell you what is going on with your body? Even the sense of time is based on your 5 senses. Lumping a "soul" into them is not needed, and adds extra baggage to something that is easily explainable WITHOUT needing to tie a soul to it. And how does math and reason defy materialistic explanations? Reason defies materialism? Thats a BOLD statement. Math has backed up damn near every materialistic point that has been made. but I am agreeing that you are enjoying your "magic show".
(March 11, 2011 at 11:13 am)tackattack Wrote: 3- To claim that they are sole inventions of humanity would require support. Can horses count? Does the squirrel realize that 2 nuts are better than one (insert crazy theist joke here)?I do have further comments on frameworks, but I’ll wait for these answers first (and I’m about to go to sleep)
Dont forget Goblins and Satyrs while you are at it..they are just as important as souls.
(March 11, 2011 at 11:13 am)tackattack Wrote: 4- If you factor in some degree of bias because of the subjectivity of the observance why couldn’t they all be true or at least indicative? ref By no means completely scientific proof, but would this be indicative that a consistency of elements (regardless of religious background or lack thereof) and no plausible biological explanation for the brain’s recording of events during apparent no activity (or at least no response from outside input) that an explanation would be outside of explainable biology?
Indicative? What, where? What indications? That you WANT to believe in a soul, and therefore is an indications that souls might exist? You keep bringing up that the brain records things when it isnt active, and then claim it has something to do with a "soul". To me you are merely making a suggestiong about the brain itself, since you say it records things while apparently not active. Lets see some legitimate work on this "unactive brain recordings" before we go any further.
(March 11, 2011 at 11:13 am)tackattack Wrote: 5- Intelligence and personalities are attainable (and quite a separate subject) with or without a soul. I never defined a soul as any of those aspects. While a squirrel may be able to count, and apes can show empathy and dolphins …etc. I think recent research show some animal showing signs of reasoning. Do any of them have an irreducible sense of self. There’s no way to effectively communicate (TMK) to find out if they have any experiences after death, but if they could that would be another question.
Thats like saying personalities and intelligence are attainable with or without Karma as well.
(March 11, 2011 at 11:13 am)tackattack Wrote: 7- I contend that there is probably it’s probably possible to measure the impact of the supernatural (which would then become natural- just incomplete in our level of understanding of it) as well. I’ll think more on it and go at this again tomorrow/ tonight whatever.
You contend such? Then by all means post how we may be able to measure a supernatural event? First you have to prove the supernatural, and by measuring it would be a good start. Is it legitimate of me to say you are wrong about a soul not being something that Goblins fool you into believing because your level of understanding about it is incomplete? Of course not, you will get mad at me and roll your eyes at that..but you will say the same thing to me about souls and when I get mad you will say I am being closed minded. Do you not see how you are playing your little emotional games with this? I admit I am playing emotional games with the Goblins, yet you act like your emotional games with a soul is worthy of scientific and serious debate.
While I wait for CS to respond and before I go into work tonight- troll snacks
Sense of Time is not based on the outdated model of the 5 senses. It is without need of physical input
Time perception refers to the sense of time passing in an individual. It differs from other senses, by virtue of having no clear raw input, such as photons in the case of visual perception or sound waves in the case of hearing. Since time cannot be directly perceived it must be reconstructed by the brain. Humans can perceive relatively short periods of time on the order of milliseconds, or durations which are a significant fraction of a person's lifetime. It is a field of study within psychology and neuroscience. .. quoted from a quick wiki search
I don't get mad .. maybe a slight bit frustrated, but you're far under my threshold for that. However, I still haven't seen cause to spend large quantities of time or energy on a worthwhile debate with you in particular yet. I don't really believe in karma, but from my understanding of the concept, yes it's like saying karma is unnecessary for personality and intellect. If you reread my point I said that I DIDN'T lump a soul in with your precious "scientific and support materialism" abstractions because the concept of a soul is by definition supranatural (not a typo) at this juncture. If we can explain it then it then becomes lumped in with those other abstractions and when it's measurable it would then become part of the natural world. As anyone here who knows me is aware, I don't play games and I rarely have a sense of humor (read devoid of emotional) If you feel I am inciting an emotional response from my attempt at an rational discussion, then perhaps your bi-ass is showing. I do feel discussing a soul is worthy of an intellectual discussion, scientific research and a serious debate, 3 areas you obviously can't or won't contribute to in this thread.
"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
(March 11, 2011 at 9:07 pm)tackattack Wrote: While I wait for CS to respond and before I go into work tonight- troll snacks
You know what..fuck you for calling me a Troll. You drag this bullshit on and on about some mystical magical "soul", and generalize your words as much as possible, and then claim you arent emotional like this:
(March 11, 2011 at 9:07 pm)tackattack Wrote: I don't play games and I rarely have a sense of humor (read devoid of emotional) If you feel I am inciting an emotional response from my attempt at an rational discussion, then perhaps your bi-ass is showing.
And then you claim this:
(March 11, 2011 at 9:07 pm)tackattack Wrote: I don't get mad ..
If you think I'm a troll then ban my ass.
Yeah right..you arent emotional, but you say things like "bi-ass" and other emotional crap. Your link that I read had NOTHING to do with a soul, had no evidence of a soul, nor did it even HINT at a soul..yet that didnt stop you from proudly posting it as if it conclusively backed you up for you "soul" conjecture. It also didnt stop you from acting the emotional, high and mighty prick did it?
March 12, 2011 at 3:36 am (This post was last modified: March 12, 2011 at 6:43 am by Captain Scarlet.)
(March 11, 2011 at 11:13 am)tackattack Wrote: 1- Fair enough, bad analogy. Here's another analogy. Close your eyes, you know what position your arm is in and can relate and visualize that in the surrounding environment. You can sense whether you're leaning sitting or laying, whether you're off balance. These are completely subjective measurements. Yet they are senses that exceed the materialistically based 5 senses. They can be manipulated from the physical, and can influence how we interact with the material world, but in and of themselves are insubstantial. Some like the sense of time require nothing more than the brain being “on”. I would lump the soul in with them and other abstract concepts like math and reason, except for there have been cases that defy a materialist explanation. Certainly requires further investigation by the scientific community. What would then be your explanation for NDE that have key common elements? Or actual brain death, yet retaining an irreducible self identity? For now though, I’m content to enjoy the “magic show”.
Again this analogy fails. The position of limbs, your balance, state of repose are validated by material systems (for example the inner ear wrt balance). All are again independently and objectively verifiable. Souls are not. There isn't one example given that defies a material explanation. I'm sorry why do I have to explain NDE? There has been no case recorded where an individual who has claimed such, has ever "come back" with new information. The sense of floating often reported, has never given rise to actual instances where objects hidden in rooms and only observable from elevated positions have ever been reported back upon. Parsimony would lead us to beleive these are hullanactions of a damaged material body that can still sense activity around. Has anyone actually ever recovered from a brain death? From what I understand it can sometimes be hard to disntinguish between deep and severe coma and brain death. Scientifc studies in this area, clearly cite that were brain death was diagnosed the patient was infact dead and there heart stopped around 4 hrs later (naturally). On the other hand there are lots of well documented cases of brain trauma giving rise to dramatic personality, mood, emotional changes. A result one would not expect if there was an immaterial self, which survived death.
Quote:3- To claim that they are sole inventions of humanity would require support. Can horses count? Does the squirrel realize that 2 nuts are better than one (insert crazy theist joke here)?I do have further comments on frameworks, but I’ll wait for these answers first (and I’m about to go to sleep)
[Holds back crazy theist jokes]. If animals can count they will have been coached by humans. I am sure that squirrels would regard more nuts as better than less nuts. But whether they know they have 2 or 1 I doubt.
Quote:4- If you factor in some degree of bias because of the subjectivity of the observance why couldn’t they all be true or at least indicative? ref By no means completely scientific proof, but would this be indicative that a consistency of elements (regardless of religious background or lack thereof) and no plausible biological explanation for the brain’s recording of events during apparent no activity (or at least no response from outside input) that an explanation would be outside of explainable biology?
Indicate what? A confirmation bias?
Quote:5- Intelligence and personalities are attainable (and quite a separate subject) with or without a soul. I never defined a soul as any of those aspects. While a squirrel may be able to count, and apes can show empathy and dolphins …etc. I think recent research show some animal showing signs of reasoning. Do any of them have an irreducible sense of self. There’s no way to effectively communicate (TMK) to find out if they have any experiences after death, but if they could that would be another question.
If souls do not contain our personalities, what is the point of them surviving death? It would not be us.
Quote:7- I contend that there is probably it’s probably possible to measure the impact of the supernatural (which would then become natural- just incomplete in our level of understanding of it) as well. I’ll think more on it and go at this again tomorrow/ tonight whatever.
OK
[/quote]
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
@ reverendjeremiah-
The logical thing to do with this:
"If you think I'm a troll then ban my ass. "- reverendjeremiah
would be to temp ban you to cool your jets since I've clearly pointed out your trollish behavior and you've admitted to trollish behavior and inciting a moderator
The PC thing to do would be to let another moderator do it
The emotional response would be to simply warn you to cease and decist your attempted flame war.
Please forgive my emotional response. You are not required to post in any thread. I think you'll find I'm actually one of the more tolerant moderators and allow athesits more leway in flaming and ad hominems because there's value in simply venting on a theist for some athesits, while holding theists at a higher standard as this isn't our forum. Please keep your responces on point of topic and drop this because this won't escalate and I consider som of your post contibutory to the community. Future instances of intentionally starting a flame war with a moderator will result in your banning. Consider that an official ceasefire.
/end modhat
As to the points you raised-
The link I posted wasn’t about a soul and I didn’t present it as conclusive evidence, it was the reliability of instances where the brain was not able to record or process info, but when consciousness returned new information had been processed.
(March 12, 2011 at 3:36 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote:
(March 11, 2011 at 11:13 am)tackattack Wrote: 1- Fair enough, bad analogy. Here's another analogy. Close your eyes, you know what position your arm is in and can relate and visualize that in the surrounding environment. You can sense whether you're leaning sitting or laying, whether you're off balance. These are completely subjective measurements. Yet they are senses that exceed the materialistically based 5 senses. They can be manipulated from the physical, and can influence how we interact with the material world, but in and of themselves are insubstantial. Some like the sense of time require nothing more than the brain being “on”. I would lump the soul in with them and other abstract concepts like math and reason, except for there have been cases that defy a materialist explanation. Certainly requires further investigation by the scientific community. What would then be your explanation for NDE that have key common elements? Or actual brain death, yet retaining an irreducible self identity? For now though, I’m content to enjoy the “magic show”.
Again this analogy fails. The position of limbs, your balance, state of repose are validated by material systems (for example the inner ear wrt balance). All are again independently and objectively verifiable. Souls are not. There isn't one example given that defies a material explanation. I'm sorry what do you mean by NDE?
Quote:3- To claim that they are sole inventions of humanity would require support. Can horses count? Does the squirrel realize that 2 nuts are better than one (insert crazy theist joke here)?I do have further comments on frameworks, but I’ll wait for these answers first (and I’m about to go to sleep)
[Holds back crazy theist jokes]. If animals can count they will have been coached by humans. I am sure that squirrels would regard more nuts as better than less nuts. But whether they know they have 2 or 1 I doubt.
Quote:4- If you factor in some degree of bias because of the subjectivity of the observance why couldn’t they all be true or at least indicative? ref By no means completely scientific proof, but would this be indicative that a consistency of elements (regardless of religious background or lack thereof) and no plausible biological explanation for the brain’s recording of events during apparent no activity (or at least no response from outside input) that an explanation would be outside of explainable biology?
Indicate what? A confirmation bias?
Quote:5- Intelligence and personalities are attainable (and quite a separate subject) with or without a soul. I never defined a soul as any of those aspects. While a squirrel may be able to count, and apes can show empathy and dolphins …etc. I think recent research show some animal showing signs of reasoning. Do any of them have an irreducible sense of self. There’s no way to effectively communicate (TMK) to find out if they have any experiences after death, but if they could that would be another question.
If souls do not contain our personalities, what is the point of them surviving death? It would not be us.
Quote:7- I contend that there is probably it’s probably possible to measure the impact of the supernatural (which would then become natural- just incomplete in our level of understanding of it) as well. I’ll think more on it and go at this again tomorrow/ tonight whatever.
OK
1- NDE refers to near death experience. OK I’ll just put analogies aside then. How would you explain the retention and continued development of identities and memories after the death of the brain and a partial/full recovery of communicable consciousness in materialistic or physicalist terms? Souls are not independently verifiable objectively, I agree at this point. Until we have the ability to directly see or communicate thoughts I feel this will probably remain a difficult hurdle to overcome.
3- If a squirrel can search for an item it must then have a concept of the item to verify his perceived reality against. He finds an item that matches his expected input and stores it away. Most mammals can count or at least subitize. The squirrel is also self-aware and passes the mirror test. There have been specific instances tested in a wild environment without coaching as well. Most mammals can count and have some measurable intelligence, arguably even personality traits. The point being that if you’re placing logic, match and thought into just possessing a neocortex that’s incorrect to. Certain birds and octopi have exhibited intelligence. To claim abstract concepts like math and reason are uniquely human inventions is not a view I would expect you to have. We are distinctly different from animals, IMO, only in that we have been able to communicate experiences (whether valid or real is yet to be discussed) that have been experienced without the use of any biological medium.
4- Indicate that it’s likely that the reports from individuals of different religious backgrounds have similar types of experiences reported during near death experiences. Indicative that, given there is no biological activity (whole brain or heart) and somehow that a person was able to recover from that state, that they would be able to have experiences
Quote: Pam Reynolds' NDE is sometimes seen as evidence of the survival hypothesis. Critics have brought forward several points which attempt to refute this interpretation.
When Reynolds heard someone say her veins were too small, medical personnel were apparently still connecting her to the heart-lung machine. At this point she was merely under general anesthesia (which can quite often fail to render a patient completely unconscious as well as causing dysphoric effects including confusion about ones position in their body). However, there is no evidence to suggest that the anesthesia failed to render Pam Reynolds completely unconscious.[2] This appears to show that her supposed Near "Death" Experience began hours before she even "died," and indeed if the second part of the operation had been called off for some reason, many of the supposed "death" experiences would have happened even though all she was subjected to were anesthetic drugs.[3] She may have had the claimed experiences before or after the standstill, when she was merely under general anesthesia and the brain was still active.[3] There is also no explanation as to how Reynolds was able to describe the surgical tool used to remove her skull cap which she had never seen.
Critics also contend that EEG monitoring is not 100% reliable. Sometimes the brain has activity that is not registered by the equipment. However, there is no evidence that suggests that the EEG used to monitor Pam Reynold's brain activity malfunctioned. The ear plugs aren't perfect either at blocking external sounds. People with ear plugs may still be able to hear sounds in their environment.[4] However, the ear-plugs used also emit a constant bleeping sound.[5] .
It has been pointed out that proponents have generally misrepresented the amount of time which Reynolds was flatlined[6]: the actual surgical timeline suggests that her brain stem activity was fully flatlined for a period of only five to six minutes at most.[7] Her experiences before and after the standstill could have felt coherent regardless: loss of consciousness would not necessarily have interrupted the hallucinations. Most people do not experience or remember "gaps" between being awake, dreams, and awaking again. However, according to the time line, about five minutes after her brain "shut down", she began to experience the sensation of being lifted out of her body. Her brain did not show any activity until after she already had this experience.[3]
from wiki on pam Reynolds
5- I do not believe I stated that souls don’t include our personalities or memories, just that it’s not the most arguable quality. I said, if not implied, that personalities and self are influenced by our physical structures and processes of the brain. That would include memories. It actually logically flows that the soul serving as a backup repository for memories ( uninfluenced by conscious processes and rationality) could account for memories in the absence of brain activity. Just that the conscious mind has no direct access to them while the overriding experiential active memory is in place and functioning. It is indicative that something is informing the consciousness of preternatural events. I fully admit that I’m presuming the preternatural informant is the Christian concept of a soul, and that it’s most likely biased of my religious views. It very well could be invisible brain goblins.
7- I guess shutting off the brain, draining it of blood, dropping the core temp and asking a series of questions of flashing a sequence of images would be one way to test it.
"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
"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
1. Are you conceding there are no viable analogies here then? I'm sorry why do I have to explain NDE? There has been no case recorded where an individual who has claimed such, has ever "come back" with new information. The sense of floating often reported, has never given rise to actual instances where objects hidden in rooms and only observable from elevated positions have ever been reported back upon. Parsimony would lead us to beleive these are hullanactions of a damaged material body that can still sense activity around. Has anyone actually ever recovered from a brain death? From what I understand it can sometimes be hard to disntinguish between deep and severe coma and brain death. Scientifc studies in this area, clearly cite that were brain death was diagnosed the patient was infact dead and there heart stopped around 4 hrs later (naturally). Sure there are 'miraculous' cases where stuff happens that the professionals don't expect, these are hardly evidence of the immaterial, they are evidence of misdiagnosis. All research in this area is consistent with material processes, and there has never been a study across a statistcially significant sample to counter this. On the other hand there are lots of well documented cases of brain trauma giving rise to dramatic personality, mood, emotional changes. A result one would not expect if there was an immaterial self, which survived death.
3. I'm not sure where you are going with the squirrel stuff to be honest. My point was that abstract things are not real things and only exist in their own frameworks and are not physically instantiated in the universe. Thus appealing to them to demonstarte souls is a self defeating appeal. Whether they are human inventions (and I would contend those frameworks are) is not relevant to the argument over the existence of souls.
4. Confirmation bias of confirmation bias. There are also dis-similar experiences and non-experiences that you have just ignored to reach a conclusion.
5. No you did not state this, nor did you state what the soul is. If it doesn't contain us (inc personality) whats the point of it surviving death? Stating you don't know what a soul is would leave you in a position of believing something (you don't know what), which interacts with you (you don't know how), for a purpose (which is not known), that it cannot be evidenced nor proven nor reasoned and is as likely as invisible brain goblins. Not deeply impressive, is it?
7. We'll park Frankensteins experiments for now, it'll probably go nowhere. But we could test them on that squirrel ;-)
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
Notice: It is against forum policy to use the forum tools to ignore the posts of an admin or moderator. There is 0 tolerance for that here when it is willful. See rule 10 located hereYou may be as vulgar as you like disagree with my opinions, methods, conclusion. theology, or personality. However if I have to read the crap that falls out of your brain and onto a keyboard, because it's my job, you have to have the potential to read all of my posts as they are sometimes used as part of my job here.
Feel free to ignore visually, not respond to or make baseless allegations about my points where they relate to a thread, but ignoring (by use of forum tools) a mod is a nono... /modhat [sleep]
"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
If animals can count they will have been coached by humans. I am sure that squirrels would regard more nuts as better than less nuts. But whether they know they have 2 or 1 I doubt.
