(February 10, 2020 at 5:17 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:
And I greatly appreciate your sounding board for my ideas Gae. It wasn't a predicate for belief, but a path of discussion for said belief. To clarify I don't believe you can find the soul in mind or morality. But in the absence of mind, where there is cognition there is soul. If mind is all there is then 0 instances of knowledge or experience outside of mind can exist. I simply don't believe that statement is true and allow for the possibility that there is something beyond mind, which could be soul as a best answer. The same applies to objective morality. Any morality that isn't individual morality or identifiable societal moral pressure would be other, and in that space fits objective morality and soul.
Thus I believe for a few quick points,
1. while I was blacked out, I remember nothing, but time passed and I was still me from all accounts, indicates i am not my memories.
2. There is a force that affects my will and focus, not related to mind or brain, indicating I am not all that focuses my will to act
3. There are complex circumstances that I have no control over, that seem orchestrated, indicating that I do not direct my life entirely
I fully get your point, that even if all this were true it still doesn't prove a soul exists, and you're right. But in the absence of a better answer, souls, for me, answers these questions. The point was to prove that an honest and rational exploration of a topic could be had, even with shakey definitions. I understand that most people on here are materialists and find it quite pointless to discuss anything non natural at all, much less non-scientifically. I just hope that opening myself up to the conversation and exploration proved that point. Gae, I don't believe you and I aren't very far apart on a lot of things (contrary to how it seems sometimes), but those little difference are important and I can respect those differences.
(February 14, 2020 at 10:32 pm)EgoDeath Wrote:fair point and well delivered friend, no offense was taken. I think you did make your point and mine at the same time. Science is a great way to study the physical and natural world. It's the wrong toolset if something is neither of those things (and by all common definitions it is neither). Gae argues that soul is either nothing or completely natural. I acquiesce that it might one day be understood and natural. I don't think strict materialists would be able to even work on that definition without questioning their foundations though, much in the same way we don't see electromagnetic fields with our natural senses like some species of fish do. We might not be able to ascertain the scientific details down to a T for the soul, but to argue that it doesn't exist in a materialists world view, is dismissive on fundamental biases. That is fine for practical day-to-day actions and interactions, and I agree, to each their own.
"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
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari