continuation from theist zone_souls and death

[Captain Scarlet]

1a) No I would choose the generally accepted diagnosis of western medicine. There are a battery of tests which at the end conclude one way or another (c 25-30 tests). If they all say brain dead, then brain death is extremely likely. Please note here that I think you are in danger of being a little too boolean in your logic. Yes there is a point when we die, but brain death is a process and not a point in time following a single diagnosis (hence the battery of on-going tests). This doesn't rule out 2 things: 1) we do not fully understand neurology and there should be other steps, which we haven't uncovered yet to help the diagnosis and therefore there is a risk of misdiagnosis (I would consider this likely to happen a small number of times across a very large sample given all science is tentative and the relative 'newness' of this science 2) human error and misdiagnosis (also likely a small number of times across a very large sample). My main point here is that there are powerful inductive reasons which suggest that if there are unknowns/misdiagnosis in a very small number of cases that a material cause/s will be uncovered, and no inductive reasons or deductive reasons at all to assume that an immaterial cause is responsible. It doesn't rule it out...but how far do you stretch credulity in doing so?

1b)What are we to conclude from reporting people who experience NDE. For them its a real experience and I may have one too. If all my faculties recover I would be tempted to put it down to brain chemistry and neurophysical processes as that excerpt concluded, whatever the point reading of my EEG was. Again its a process not a point in time following one test.

3a)I had a number of exmaples, one was a brain damaged person, another just a murder I would commit. With my soul ONLY being an observer of my material self, I would not be judged harshly in either case. This view seems contrary to most centuries of xtian thought and teaching as well as as sense of justice, although it is consistent with the material realities we know of. An active rather than passive presence would falsify this, but would be more consistent with centuries of xtian teaching and justice but inconsistent with the material world.

3b) they don't exist? you mean they're not testable. You can't make a shadow conform to a shape (shadow puppets)? You can't make it go away? It's insubstantial, useful, natural, controllable , observable and we can explain it? Technically it can't be separated from it's "physical generator" but it can be simulated. If I was standing in the sun and had a shadow, and then poof I disappeared and my shadow stayed... that would be the analogy, separate distinctly from it's physical counterpart. You could argue that upon returning to witness it would then indistinguishable from the physical form, but if someone verified it remaining after I left, what would we have?

No I mean that shaddows do not exist. They are effects of our physical instantiation in the universe. I am happy for now to run with the shaddow analogy. The example you quoted of a shaddow remaining post the removal of its physical owner is a good one. There are ahgain powerful inductive reasons to suggest that this has never happened nor will and again nothing to suggest otherwise.


3c)x is necessarily zero, but as you cannot show it isn't necessarily zero and there are no inductive reasons to believe it is anything put zero, what is one left to conclude?

[tackattack]

1a) I understand your point about death being a process I do, and perhaps I'm being a little too black and white (or boolean as you say) about it. I'm attempting to establish a standard. For instance, I consider death as it applies to this conversation the point at which the brain has 0 eletrical activity, the circulatory system has ceased to function without aide of machines, the brain appears unresponsive to light, pain, sound, etc. That's the point I consider the brain to be "off". Would you concur?
1b)if you answered yes to 1a then you would conclude when people have information existing outside of the experiential pervue (ie. the brain is off)that is externally verifiable, that the brain is not the only (I was going to use soul.. bad pun intended) necessity to experiencing material reality. Since nothing is functioning materially I would assume an immaterial (not to say it couldn't be measured at a point). Hopefully this will help you see why it seems illogical (to me) to deny the possibility of the immaterial entirely and search for a material source or a measurable supranatural cause to help us further our definition of natural.
3a) I'm trying to show you without too much preaching and Bible quoting that it's not contrary at all to Christian teaching as I, and many others, have experienced it. I believe you're confusing the concept of the Holy Spirit and a soul. I'm not even close to getting into a conversation about the Holy Spirit yet. Here we're talking about a soul. It's a Christian teaching that our soul will be judged. New Testament teaching from Jesus clarifies the materialistic focus of the laws of Moses to their appropriate Spiritual context. Bottom line, in Christianity, we're judged off of our intent and motives in judgement, while living we are to discern whether someone is Christian based on the results of his/her works (actions) because we can't clearly see into the heart (mind, rationalle, intent, soul, etc.) directly.
3b) I consider it very strong inductive reasoning behind it as I've clearly outlined. If you don't come to the same conclusion but see the possibility as indicative, perhaps you see it as weakly inductive. Hopefully I've illustrated cases and examples and outlined my reasoning to the point where you can see it's at least (for you) weakly inductive, which is honestly as far as I predicted a materialst to ever go and we can agree to disagree on the strength of the inference, and stop reitterating the same points I think I fairly clearly se your side of it.
3c)I don't understand your alethic modality claiming that it's neccessary for x to be 0. I clearly stated and showed evidence about that by alethic modality's standards it's at least possible. Whatever that recording supranatural item is and whatever you call it (I call it a soul, others could say brain goblins) doesn't matter it makes X equal to anything except 0. I understand the practicalit of reducing (via Occam's razor) most things. It's very useful when dealing the experience and material reality to only factor x as 0. Hopefully though you can see where I see that as denial of supranatural evidence.

[reverendjeremiah]

I once read the "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?", and it turned out to be a really good read.

I'm bringing this up because the authors went into detail about what the original Christians (whom they called "The Gnostics") considered to be a soul, spirit, salvation, etc.. They considered the gospels to be very symbolic, that Jesus didnt physically die, and they would become offended to suggest otherwise. To them it was just another Mystery/Passion play that was so very popular 2000 years ago with Ovid, Bacchus/dionysus, Demeter and persephone. I personally think this is the best definition for the terminology.

Anyways, their definition of Soul (which was a Germanic based word for "binding", and they didnt use it much) was along the definition of "psyche", which basically meant "consciousness". In other words, your consciousness (psyche) is the root of all thoughts and actions that your body makes. The actions effected things outside of your body, such as doing good deeds, hurting people, making things. They considered this action to also be part of the soul, or leaving your mark on the world. To the gnostics, this impression and action upon reality could never be removed from history or time.. so therefore the "soul" was immortal, unchanging, and everlasting. To make it short, the "soul" was merely your life experiences inside and outside of your psyche. Many people wanted to relate a "soul" to some kind of ghost because of how difficult the concept was to put across. I can build a house, but even if it burnt down the next day and people tried to remove all evidence of me building that house they could never, ever change the impression that my thoughts and actions caused in their interactions within time and reality. THAT is what the gnostics meant by "an immortal soul". The only one who could possibly destroy this interaction was the creator, who could not only destroy the body, but also the soul...because he would be the only one that could wipe away time and space. It gets much more indepth, but this is a very basic explanation.

"spirit" is latin for breath. It was a sign of being alive, for if you were dead, then your body would "give up the spirit", or stop breathing. Ghost (another germanic word) was sometimes used as a synonim for "spiritus". Ghost meaning "fury, anger" which fit well with the norse pagan mythology. To the gnostics, spirit and soul were both seperate entities that dwell within the same body to create life. To be alive, you had to have spirit (breath) and soul (psyche, consciousness)

This makes the most sense to me..what do you think?

[tackattack]

Interesting I might have to add that one to my list of reading materials. I tried to clarify terminology early on so this wouldn't be an issue. According to the gnostic ideas you presented then the concept I'm referring to as a soul would actually be the gnostic spirit/ghost (more than the actual physiology of breathing and the mind I referred to would be the gnostic soul.

The agnostics ran stuff for a while and were heavily influenced by the Platonic idea of an immortal soul:

Plato, drawing on the words of his teacher Socrates, considered the soul the essence of a person, being that which decides how we behave. He considered this essence to be an incorporeal, eternal occupant of our being. As bodies die the soul is continually reborn in subsequent bodies. The Platonic soul comprises three parts:

1. the logos (mind, nous, or reason)
2. the thymos (emotion, or spiritedness, or masculine)
3. the eros (appetitive, or desire, or feminine)

Each of these has a function in a balanced, level and peaceful soul.

... borrowed from wiki

I'll talk more on this later I need sleep.

[reverendjeremiah]

Oh yes, they did borrow heavily from Plato. To the gnostics, the "soul" could be shared with other people. So right now me an tack are having a discussion. We are sharing and searching each others "souls" because we are interacting with each other. If we were face to face, we would be sharing our souls through the spirit. In other words, we would be interacting together physically and mentally (souls) through speech (Spirit = breath). When the gnostics had the "spirit of the lord", it meant they were preaching (talking..you need breath to talk) and sharing the good experiences (their souls). This book by far had the best explanations of the foundations of Christianity and really made an impact on me. this Christianity was MUCH MORE ATTRACTIVE than the conservative, preachy, closed minded christianity that we see in America today. Gnostics considered these types of christians to be stuck in the first stage of the mystery; thinking "of this world" and not the immortal soul. I cant remember every detail, but the next step was something like realizing the mystery of the soul (salvation) and denying "this world". I think the last step was actually becoming a christ like figure (Jesus in your heart) by becoming aware and sensitive of your soul (interactions within reality) makes such a great impact on everything and everyone around you.

Anyways, If I had to choose any kind of christianity to convert to, I would convert to a gnostic in the unitarian/universalist model. The thing is, modern gnostics would not harp on atheist or other religions for not being a christian. They would only care about how sensitive you were to your thoughts and surroundings. To them, it was a method of becoming compassionate that would eventually release you from dogma- Once you have Jesus in your heart (the last step of the mystery), you no longer need the law because you will do what is kind and right because you WANT to..not because of some law that forces you to do so because of promises of punishment if you do not comply. That rings very familiar compared to many of todays christians who are still "of this world" who follow the law for fear, ignorant, and selfish reasons.. as opposed to having Jesus (salvation) in their hearts and walking the path of Jesus (doing right because you want to do it and help saving people from destructive and hateful actions and ways).

The gnostics seem more like agnostics to me..but that is a completely different topic to me.