RE: Arguments against Soul
September 26, 2019 at 8:43 am
(This post was last modified: September 26, 2019 at 8:51 am by Aegon.)
(September 25, 2019 at 3:52 pm)possibletarian Wrote:(September 25, 2019 at 2:04 pm)Aegon Wrote: I don't think there is a good reason to say there is an immaterial portion of a person that exists outside of the mind; rather, I think there's good reason not to be as confident there isn't. I think that, if there is, it requires a type of thinking that is very divorced from the way we currently evaluate our material universe. I don't know much beyond that.
Okay, so what are those reasons ?
And what other way of evaluation our universe should we use, what kind of justifiable thinking could we use ?
Well personally I think there's going to be a limit on how much we can understand about our universe, since our brains are made for survival not to see reality as it really is. We're not there yet, obviously.
But you guys are acting like physics is done. As if we understand everything so well we can definitively rule out these things... meanwhile, scientific research has made little progress on explaining consciousness. I think you guys are far too confident in our ability to explain us. I think you're acting almost unscientific in your dismissal of the probability of discovering new things about how we operate, and if there really is anything more to us that impacts the world around us besides what we already know. Again, I'm not saying that there is a soul - I'm saying you guys are giving our understanding of ourselves far too much credit right now, and I think it's worth leaving a bit of wiggle room because, at the end of the day, each of us has a subjective experience we have yet to create an accurate formula to explain. I still don't know what consciousness is and why it happens. Do you?
Don't put me in the boat with Christians, like Succumb or whatever just did. I respect scientific theory. It's the best method of getting as close as possible to objective truths. And I'm saying I don't think we've progressed enough for you to be so confident in your answers.
What type of thinking? Hmmm... maybe I should have worded that better. In the same way it takes a different "type" of thinking to think of things in quantum as opposed to classical... I'm sure there will be another "type" of thinking required to understand the next level. I don't think quantum mechanics is the end. Do you?
My point here is that I think there is potential for a type of "soul" - not the soul touted by Judeo-Christian types - that we will eventually understand through scientific means, and we're not there yet.