The Human Soul

xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
The Human Soul

I am familiar with the Christian view of the soul, but I am interested in hearing the atheist view on this subject.  Does such a thing as a soul exist?  If so, what is it, exactly?  Is it eternal? Do other creatures have it as well as humans?  And if you are opposed to the idea of the soul, why?  What is conciousness then?  Is this a question that can be answered without any mysticism?

All I know is... Cogito ergo sum. 

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: Let us

xamination wrote:

Let us assume that an individual atom has no self-awareness. Let us also assume that the average person is self-aware.

These are fair assumptions, IMO.

Quote:
Since humans are simply a combination of different types of atoms,

<>We are not *simply* a combination of atoms, we are a very *complex* combination of atoms shaped by millions of years of evolution.>

Quote:
when do a group of atoms realize they are atoms

About the time they develop an atomic theory. That would have been somewhere around the time of 460 BCE when Democritus was born. Either he or his teacher came up with the idea, so let's call it 460 BCE and accept that the exact year is not known.

 

Quote:
- or what combination of atoms do you need for them to realize what they are as a whole?

We will probably never understand everything there is to know about 'what we are', so the question is too vague. We do know one combination of atoms that can understand itself to the level of atoms, and that is the human being.

Quote:
If I were to create a human atom by atom in my evil labrotory with the help of my assistant Igor, when lightning struck and my creation awoke, would it be self-aware?

To some degree, yes, depending on how much knowledge you encode in the brain. The more it learns about itself, the more self-aware it will be. Just as a newborn child eventually can understand atomic theory.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
TheSage wrote: Semantics

TheSage wrote:
Semantics often make a good argument weak. It annoys me. That's not directed at you, but merely a general statement.


-- Heh, I hear you. It is an important consideration though.

TheSage wrote:
All I'm getting at is that if everything IS connected, and nothing can be permanently destroyed, why is it so far-fetched to believe that a (hypothetical) non-material aspect of consciousness survives while the brain dies. It's like a piece of computer code in the internet. The computer that came from may be long gone, but the information is still there because it is connected,or wired to the rest of the information in such a fashion as to be indivisible!

 

-- It's that you're using terms like "immaterial" and "non-material" in reference to physical things, imo. As hello pointed out, this is a room likely to be rife with physicalists. "Immaterial" is a problematic word anyway, since it doesn't actually point to what the subject is, only what it isn't.

 

It's not far-fetched at all to believe that the matter/energy that makes up a brain or mind continues after death, but when we refer to the brain, or brain functions, mind, consciousness, we're refering to specific arrangements of matter/energy, which change significantly at death; the electrical-chemical activity ceases--mind is already gone--but then the brain structures themselves steadily decompose until there is no brain at all, even though the matter/energy still exists.

 

But what you are saying is that there might be something about consciousness that exists independent from mind; you're taking a term, coined specifically to refer to a facet of mind, and applying it where it wasn't intended. That is where I would call for justification.

 

I think my main reaction to the hypothesis is that it projects too much; it's a little over-personified, or at least over-extended, to my ear. The hologram analogy, for example...

 

It would seem apparent that holograms are indivisible, in that smaller parts of it will project the same image, but this is a property of holograms. Can we really say that it is a property of the rose? If we could somehow project an image from the rose itself, would it still be indivisible? If we just took a thorn and projected an image from it, would it be of a rose? A rose project a full rosebush? A rosebush project a garden? (In other words, it is a property of the medium--the film--that manifests indivisibility, rather than the original source of the image that the hologram is imitating.)

 

But, if we grant that there is an indivisible "holographic" consciousness, for example, of which ours is but a small part, or a reflection of, I would have to wonder why all of our consciousnesses are not the same.

 

In any event, it seems like what you're suggesting is that there is (or at least might be) something about the mind that isn't mind. That's the part that I, personally, would take issue with, and what is perhaps causing friction.


DoubleB
RRS local affiliate
Posts: 34
Joined: 2006-12-17
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: I am

xamination wrote:

I am familiar with the Christian view of the soul, but I am interested in hearing the atheist view on this subject. Does such a thing as a soul exist? If so, what is it, exactly? Is it eternal? Do other creatures have it as well as humans? And if you are opposed to the idea of the soul, why? What is conciousness then? Is this a question that can be answered without any mysticism?

All I know is... Cogito ergo sum.

My response to the original question is this, and I echo the response of mattshizzle, NO. 

BB

 


TheSage
TheSage's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Wow, Laker-Taker. That's

Wow, Laker-Taker. That's the best response I've had so far! =D

I guess, in response to the issue you have with my argument, I would reply that the current stipulated definition of the mind is insufficient. Unless I coin a new term, I'll end up having to use one with a stigma already attached to it such as "soul" which is, of course, where this whole discussion began. And don't forget that this "soul" or whatever interacts with the neuronic mind to a high degree, so it is difficult to distinguish between the two. 

 

In reference to your discussion on the hologram theory, don't forget that the rose would not be what "projects" the image. It is part of the same projection as the whole garden. And surely anyone experienced in physics realises that everything in the universe interacts with every other thing in the universe all the time. Surely, it is hypthetically possible to determine the location and size of everything in the universe judging from the effects on a single atom. (Yes, this would involve already knowing everything in the universe, but perhaps you see my point)

 

Natural, I can only think you're trying to up your post-count by posting 4 replies in a row...  =D I'll reply to your comments as best I can.

Quote:
That it is a question of physical information rather than physical matter.  Do not confuse physicalism with naive materialism.

I'm not getting confused here, I was simply pointing out an interesting fact that may make people think. 

Quote:
Define experience and consciousness.

Quote:
Define insubstantial. Is an email insubstantial?

No. I've already said I won't get caught up in semantics. You already know what these terms mean.

Quote:
Again, you are neglecting that information is also physical but neither 'returns to the earth' nor 'becomes one with the universe'. Information can be both created and destroyed. Think of information as physical arrangement of matter/energy in spacetime. That is what our minds and memories are. Actually, mind is also a process, a stable transformation of information over time

I assume "physical" to be in terms of matter, but that may not be how you read my meaning. If you mean that the physical includes energy (in that matter IS composed of energy) then I think we'd probably actually agree. But I'm a little confused as to why you're saying that information and the mind are the same thing, then you say that the mind is a transformation of information...

Quote:
It is. We are part of the planet, and we are conscious of the planet and of ourselves, making the planet (us) conscious of the planet (us + whatever else we know about the Earth).

Humanity is like the brain of the planet and each person is like a neuron in that brain. The planet's consciousness is composed of us...

And in any case, we DO 'explain' things to our cells, but we use hormones and neural signals to do the talking. Human culture (family, school, church, TV, media, etc.) teaches individual humans about humanity and the world, so yes, the world does talk to us through cultural expression.

 This is a pretty good analogy, except is it fair to suggest that humanity is the brain? If so, the planet has self-destructive tendencies! Laughing

Quote:
the analogy breaks at some level, because humans are far more advanced than a single neuron. Our consciousness is capable of understanding itself, meta-awareness, which a single neuron is not capable of.

That's not analogy, that's comparison. Is human consciouness simply meta-awareness compared to some greater form of awareness? =)

Quote:
What if spirit/soul is just 'what you leave behind when you die', and that can include many many things such as writings, videos, memories in your friends and loved ones, what you've taught your kids and students, other people writing about you, the school play you performed in, the movie you starred in, a song you wrote, etc.
 

That's a newly stipulated meaning of the word 'soul' and I wouldn't really agree with it... It neglects the 'conscious' aspect of the soul.


TheSage
TheSage's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
DoubleB wrote:

DoubleB wrote:

My response to the original question is this, and I echo the response of mattshizzle, NO.

BB

What a startlingly concise argument. Convinced me! [/sarcasm]

Eye-wink

 

Here's something that may interest people with regards to hypnosis and past-life regression:

Quote:
While reliving an apparent past life as a Viking, one man, a thirty-seven-year-old behavioural scientist, shouted words that linguistic ahthorities later identified as Old Norse.(50) After being regressed to an ancient Persian lifetime, the same man began to write in a spidery, Arabic-style script that an expert in Near Eastern languages identified as an ahtentic representation of Sassanid Pahlavi, a long-extinct Mesopotamian tongue that flourished between A.D. 226 and 651.(51)
- Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe(London: HarperCollinsPublishers) p.215

50/51: Joel L. Whitton and Joe Fisher, Life between Life (New York: Double-day, 1986) p.154/156

 

 The Dr. Whitton that is referenced here is a professor of psychology and is very interested in hypnotherapy and past-life regression. He has published many of his findings and has recordings of events like the one above among thousands of hours of recorded material. The context this is in in the book I quoted from is that the soul needs to grow as well, which is facilitated by the experience of living many lives. The conscious mind is unaware of the past lives, but the unconscious mind (that is brought to the foreground in hypnotherapy) does remember these things. Whether or not these actually involve memories of past lives, most psychologists will admit that past-life regression has startling mental healing effects.


gregfl
Posts: 168
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Actually, a recent

Actually, a recent scientific discovery has proven that the christians have gotten this wrong for the past two thousand years. 

 

Actually, There is no soul, but rather a Sole in us all. 

 

It's true, everyone has there own two-eyes-on-top personal fish living within them. This fish doesn't control the body per se but rather works with it in order to help you swim and pick fresh seafood from the marketplace.  Since the fish is invisible, doesn't weigh anything, and leaves your body upon death only to enter another newborn by swimming up their genitals, you will need to accept what I am telling you right now on faith.

 

Hallowed be the Sole!

 

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
TheSage wrote:

TheSage wrote:
Natural, I can only think you're trying to up your post-count by posting 4 replies in a row... =D I'll reply to your comments as best I can.

Nope, just catching up on the thread from the beginning.

Quote:
Quote:
Define experience and consciousness.

Quote:
Define insubstantial. Is an email insubstantial?

No. I've already said I won't get caught up in semantics. You already know what these terms mean.

This entire debate is about semantics, specifically the semantics of what is natural and what is supernatural. The only way to work it out is to agree on definitions up front.

E.g. 'Insubstantial' may mean 'not made of matter' or it could mean 'not part of the physical universe'. Unless you define what you mean, then no, I actually do NOT know what these terms mean (to you).

Quote:
Quote:
Again, you are neglecting that information is also physical ...

That is what our minds and memories are. Actually, mind is also a process, a stable transformation of information over time

I assume "physical" to be in terms of matter, but that may not be how you read my meaning. If you mean that the physical includes energy (in that matter IS composed of energy) then I think we'd probably actually agree.

Physical, as defined by physicalists, is basically anything that can be studied by physics/science. Spacetime is also physical, but definitely immaterial. Forces are also physical and immaterial.

Quote:
But I'm a little confused as to why you're saying that information and the mind are the same thing, then you say that the mind is a transformation of information...

The mind is information. The mind is also a process of transformation. There is no contradiction, since processes are also information. A process is simply a higher-level abstraction that implies a transformation over time. Just like a movie is information, but to watch the movie you have to process it over time.

You could take a snapshot of someone's brain, essentially recording their 'mind'. But to experience mind, i.e. consciousness, you need to process the mind over time.

Quote:
This is a pretty good analogy, except is it fair to suggest that humanity is the brain? If so, the planet has self-destructive tendencies! Laughing

So it does. It's like a shizophrenic brain. However, there are times when people act with global awareness (GPS is a good example, the internet is another), such that I think it's valid to say that humanity as a whole is the brain of the Earth. Lots of humans have self-destructive tendencies, so I don't think that weakens the analogy.

Quote:
That's not analogy, that's comparison.

An analogy IS a comparison.

Quote:
Is human consciouness simply meta-awareness compared to some greater form of awareness? =)

Unknown. We'll have to investigate that. It may very well be. In any case, I'm confident that any 'greater form of awareness' will be purely physical. I also have speculations that there is a general principle behind ALL forms of intelligence, meaning that the intelligence of a human mind will be fundamentally related to any 'higher' form of intelligence; likewise, I speculate that we'll find a fundamental relation between human intelligence and the process of genetic evolution.

What would this 'higher' form of intelligence be like? In a sense, we already have it - the scientific method allows humans to cooperate to achieve greater intelligence than any human alone could achieve. The internet will be the 'neocortex' to humanity's 'old brain'. In fact, it largely already is.

One sure sign of a 'higher' intelligence will be when humans can communicate telepathically via technology. The mobile phone and wireless laptop are just the beginning of this trend toward faster and more reliable communication.

Quote:
Quote:
What if spirit/soul is just 'what you leave behind when you die', and that can include many many things such as writings, videos, memories in your friends and loved ones, what you've taught your kids and students, other people writing about you, the school play you performed in, the movie you starred in, a song you wrote, etc.

That's a newly stipulated meaning of the word 'soul' and I wouldn't really agree with it... It neglects the 'conscious' aspect of the soul.

If, as I speculate, cultural evolution is intrinsically the same kind of thing as human intelligence, then no, it does not neglect conscious experience. Remember that mind is both information and process, so the 'what you leave behind' part is the snapshot of spirit/soul, and thus when other people read or otherwise take part in your recorded ideas, then the 'what you left behind' is taking part in a human experience, and hence conscious.

If you think about this, it must be so. Eventually we'll be able to copy human minds (to greater and greater levels of fidelity, though maybe never with 100% accuracy), and those copied minds will experience consciousness just the same as a human born from a womb. The weaker the fidelity, the less accurate the experience.

Low fidelity 'spirit', such as a book that you write, will have less impact on the conscious experience of humans in the future. High fidelity 'spirit, such as a brain scan, can create mind-clones of the original person, effectively acheiving immortality, and reproducing conscious experience more-or-less exactly.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
The sage, I highly suggest

The sage,

I highly suggest that you read Antonio Damasio's book The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness This book was the best examination of consciousness i've seen to date.  

Consciousness is a process of physical organs in the body; it is essentially a process taht keeps tabs on what is going on within the parts of the body that the nervous system is attached to.  if we could link our nervous systems, we could, theoretically, create a collective consciousness much liek the Borg of Star Trek.  But outside of this potential interaction, there is no medium for consciousness to transmit from one person to another accept through language, observation of behavior (as behavior patterns are linked to states on mind), or some other physically-based communication.  

The thing I think you are missing is that there is no separation from the brain and consciousness.  We often, when talking about consciousness, use terms that imply a causal relationship, but this betrays a dualistic worldview that is an illusion. Thoughts, emotions, etc--all qualia are simply information that arise as patterns of energy, hormones, and other physical processes within the nervous system (and not only the brain.  

I'm a monist.  I am so because we see the world made up of stuff taht interacts with other things in the world.  From an ontological point of view, if dualism were true it would imply that the world were composed of two fundamental and distinct ontological categories--call them whatever you like, matter and spirit will work unless you have different terms you prefer.  If they are truly distinct, then they cannot interact.  If they can interact, they are not dualistic, but rather part of a distinction of substances within a monistic universe.  If we can detect one substance, we must be able to detect the other, even if only indirectly (through the substances we can directly detect.  

If consciousness is a manifestation of something non-material or non-physical, meaning that it is something that transcends matter and energy, then it would mean that it was either composed of something that leads to dualism or to a monism with some substance that we cannot yet directly detect.  

If it were dualistic, then my question remains on how our physical neural processes can interact with it.  If it is simply some natural substance that we cannot directly detect, then the burden of proof still lies with the claimant here--that being you, apparently.  I say so because the processes of the brain seems to be more than sufficiently explainable by use of physicalist worldviews.  There does not seem to be a ontological need to propose that consciousness is in need of extra-physical explanation.  I'd say more, but without a common source of terms, references,etc (I've readThe Holographic Universe, but was not impressed), there would be little to say.  

I seriously challenge you to read damasio's work, even if you simply found some essays or articles online where he summarizes his points.  

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote: rexlunae

natural wrote:
rexlunae wrote:

If the Earth, as a whole, were conscious, there should be some evidence of coordinated action.

Would you consider the orbiting GPS satellites to be 'coordinated action'?

Yes. Coordinated human action. Not coordinated by the Earth. The Earth is only a passive participant.

natural wrote:
Quote:
The problem with analogizing us to our cells is that our cells don't have the mental faculties to evaluate our consciousness. It's not just a problem of scale, cells are fundamentally too simple to understand and learn.

I agree, but I still think it's a useful analogy overall.

I'm confused. I don't see how you can agree with me and also hold that it's a useful analogy. Cells individually can't understand the overall behavior of large animals because they are too simple to possess learning. Humans, however, are not too simple to understand the behavior of planets.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


TheSage
TheSage's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
Physical, as defined by physicalists, is basically anything that can be studied by physics/science. Spacetime is also physical, but definitely immaterial. Forces are also physical and immaterial.

Well put. I'll keep that in mind in future posts.

Quote:
Lots of humans have self-destructive tendencies, so I don't think that weakens the analogy.

I know. I was joking. Smiling

Quote:
An analogy IS a comparison.

Perhaps I didn't put that quite right. You were comparing a cell to a human, instead of comparing the relationships between a human and a cell, and that of a planet and a human. I feel that was a mistake in the analogy.

Quote:
One sure sign of a 'higher' intelligence will be when humans can communicate telepathically via technology.

Quote:
Eventually we'll be able to copy human minds (to greater and greater levels of fidelity, though maybe never with 100% accuracy), and those copied minds will experience consciousness just the same as a human born from a womb.

If, not when. While I agree this is probably a scientific goal, it may not be possible. I think you might have to face the fact that science fiction is just that, fiction. lol

Quote:
If, as I speculate, cultural evolution is intrinsically the same kind of thing as human intelligence, then no, it does not neglect conscious experience.

Well, that's a rather interesting speculation and I find your following comments quite compelling. But do you really think such a literary spectre would be aware of itself? No, this is still not a soul.

 

Quote:
The thing I think you are missing is that there is no separation from the brain and consciousness.

I think you're missing that this is an assumption.

Quote:
If consciousness is a manifestation of something non-material or non-physical, meaning that it is something that transcends matter and energy, then it would mean that it was either composed of something that leads to dualism or to a monism with some substance that we cannot yet directly detect.

People are quite willing to accept the concept of gravity, yet bring up anything like a soul and everyone goes on the offensive. Gravity is not matter; it is not energy; it is a force, and gravity accumulates relative to the presence of material. Why is it such a leap of logic to say that there might be forces that govern human tendencies to learn and understand? If I happen to use the word 'soul' because it is the most adequate word to describe a sense of "self" that is pre-birth and post-death, then people come brandishing pitchforks.

Quote:
I seriously challenge you to read damasio's work, even if you simply found some essays or articles online where he summarizes his points.

I'll see what I can find. Thanks for the info.

 

Am I the only one that finds it difficult to believe that evolution is resulting in increasingly more complex entities purely due to survivalism? I'm sure single-celled organisms performing photosynthesis didn't have a great deal of trouble surviving. Perhaps one of the things I should point out that I like to consider is that genetic mutation occurs out of necessity. Humanity is aware of what it lacks, and perhaps that in itself is a force for change in the genetic code. Think about that for a second, really. If you're cold then maybe you wish you were warmer. It's not that unusual a topic to suggest that the mind can affect matter. Just look at Dr. Masaru Emoto's work on the responsiveness of water. If the genetic code is subconsciously changed, then evolution becomes less of a chore to explain. Note that sharks and crocodiles have evolved so little in millions of years. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but at least some should have been at least neutral. Shouldn't there be as much variety of species as with land reptiles or other fish respectively in this case? If mutation is dependent on necessity then there would be less speciation in successful predators, as is the case with crocodiles and sharks!


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
TheSage wrote: People are

TheSage wrote:

People are quite willing to accept the concept of gravity, yet bring up anything like a soul and everyone goes on the offensive. Gravity is not matter; it is not energy; it is a force, and gravity accumulates relative to the presence of material.

No.  This is the old Newtonian view.  You should probably read about relativity.  Gravity is a warping, bending, etc of space-time, which was defined above as being physical.  You are operating out of an outdated paradigm of gravity. 

Quote:
Why is it such a leap of logic to say that there might be forces that govern human tendencies to learn and understand? If I happen to use the word 'soul' because it is the most adequate word to describe a sense of "self" that is pre-birth and post-death, then people come brandishing pitchforks.

Sure, there are forces that are involved in governing behavior.  these forces ar epart of the physical structure of our body.  Any electromagnetic fields, gravity, or any other forces that have influence upon our consciousness and behavior are part of the physicalist's explanation.  If you want to call those things a soul, fine.  But you still have to realize taht the information dissipates without the medium to store and process them.

Quote:
Am I the only one that finds it difficult to believe that evolution is resulting in increasingly more complex entities purely due to survivalism?

Nt the only one, no.  I'm just not one of those confused about that.

Quote:
I'm sure single-celled organisms performing photosynthesis didn't have a great deal of trouble surviving. Perhaps one of the things I should point out that I like to consider is that genetic mutation occurs out of necessity.

Why? What necessity?  Have you been reading Lamarck or Trofim Lysenko? Mutations are random.  They happen as mistakes in the copying of genes, not as a result of intention, necessity, etc.

Quote:
Humanity is aware of what it lacks, and perhaps that in itself is a force for change in the genetic code. Think about that for a second, really. If you're cold then maybe you wish you were warmer. It's not that unusual a topic to suggest that the mind can affect matter.

Well, the mind is matter, as I see it.  So yes, the mind does effect matter, just not in the way you are implying.  Our thoughts, intentions, and needs do not effect the mutations of our genes.  This is a blatant misunderstanding of how evolution works. 

Quote:
Just look at Dr. Masaru Emoto's work on the responsiveness of water.

Dr. Masaru does not have good standing in the scientific community.  His experiments have received much criticism, and are not considered evidence that our thoughts effect matter in the way you imply they do.  

Quote:
If the genetic code is subconsciously changed,

There is no good evidence to support this

Quote:
then evolution becomes less of a chore to explain. Note that sharks and crocodiles have evolved so little in millions of years. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but at least some should have been at least neutral. Shouldn't there be as much variety of species as with land reptiles or other fish respectively in this case? If mutation is dependent on necessity then there would be less speciation in successful predators, as is the case with crocodiles and sharks!

This conclusion is specious.  The fact that some species do not change forms much in millions of years simply means taht the form that they had millions of years ago was able to survive any environmental changes taht occured.  To sayt that this is due to their not needing mutation, you are twisting the idea.  It is not taht they didn't need to mutate their genes, it's that if mutations occured, those mutations did not supply any advantage, and so speciation did not occur as much.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


TheSage
TheSage's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

TheSage wrote:

People are quite willing to accept the concept of gravity, yet bring up anything like a soul and everyone goes on the offensive. Gravity is not matter; it is not energy; it is a force, and gravity accumulates relative to the presence of material.

No. This is the old Newtonian view. You should probably read about relativity. Gravity is a warping, bending, etc of space-time, which was defined above as being physical.

Apart from the term 'force,' my statement still holds true. Gravity is neither energy nor matter. I am not exactly an authority on relativity, but I am familiar with some of the basic concepts. I still think my analogy was fair.

Quote:
Sure, there are forces that are involved in governing behavior. these forces ar epart of the physical structure of our body. Any electromagnetic fields, gravity, or any other forces that have influence upon our consciousness and behavior are part of the physicalist's explanation. If you want to call those things a soul, fine. But you still have to realize taht the information dissipates without the medium to store and process them.

I am well aware of that. But you have to realise that it is entirely possible that, despite the dissipation of information it is not lost, as per my earlier analogy regarding the internet. Do you think it is unreasonable to consider the prospect that the information that dissipates maintains a relationship and, as a whole, continues to be aware of itself?

Quote:
Mutations are random. They happen as mistakes in the copying of genes, not as a result of intention, necessity, etc.

Quote:
Our thoughts, intentions, and needs do not effect the mutations of our genes. This is a blatant misunderstanding of how evolution works.

I am well aware of how evolution works. I am not misunderstanding it, I am presenting an alternative mechanism. YOU are being incredibly closed-minded by saying it is not possible when you have absolutely no grounds for saying so. I accept evolution as much as the next person, but I have the wisdom to accept that new ideas will develop within evolutionary science due to research in quantum physics. YOU do not want to consider anything. I'm not trying to convince you to believe this is the absolute truth, but the very least an open-minded scientist would say is: "Wow, wouldn't that be interesting if it's true?" You telling me I misunderstand evolutionary process is just rude, and I don't appreciate being talked down to on the issue.

Quote:
Dr. Masaru does not have good standing in the scientific community. His experiments have received much criticism, and are not considered evidence that our thoughts effect matter in the way you imply they do.

Okay, maybe he wasn't the best example! His experiments are too open to interpretation...

How about this? (I know how skeptical some people are about the stuff in the movie 'What the Bleep do We Know?!', but this clip summarises the point quite well regardless) You have to watch right to the end to see the effects of observation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3GxAaBy5-U

Quote:
There is no good evidence to support this
I'm not saying that it's true yet; I'm saying that it's possible. Note the distinction.

Quote:
It is not taht they didn't need to mutate their genes, it's that if mutations occured, those mutations did not supply any advantage, and so speciation did not occur as much.

I am well aware of the effects of mutations not providing any advantage. But if mutation is random then there are also plenty of mutations that don't provide any DISadvantage in such circumstances and so these genes live on passively. Over a great deal of time, these could still result in a higher degree of speciation than we see.

However, I may be thinking about evolution over too-few generations so it's not the most cogent argument! It probably really just amounts to slightly increased intra-species variety. This is kinda detracted from the main argument though and I'm probably speculating way beyond the main thrust of my argument!

 

I want to point out to everyone, once again, that I am not trying to prove this area of study to be true. It is way too early to be trying to do anything like that. However, I believe this line of inquiry has merit and to shun people who advocate it is to invite problems. If the scientific community gets too dogmatic, and current paradigms given more credit than they are due purely out of habit and arrogance, then science's development is going to be hindered significantly. As I said earlier, I would think the wisest approach would be to say to these people "I think this theory will be very important if it is true. In light of that, keep researching and trying to come up with more evidence." There's obviously not enough to prove the truth of some of these theories. However, they are perfectly reasonable alternatives.

Remember that Galileo had an incredibly hard time convincing the scientific community that the Copernican model of the solar system was better than the Ptolemaic model because it was inconceivable that the earth would revolve around the sun. Einstein said that while black holes were theoretically possible, he didn't believe they actually existed. He also said that quantum entanglement was impossible, but scientists have since proved that it's true. Give alternative theories a chance because there are always paradigm shifts in science.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
TheSage

TheSage wrote:
Quote:
Sure, there are forces that are involved in governing behavior. these forces ar epart of the physical structure of our body. Any electromagnetic fields, gravity, or any other forces that have influence upon our consciousness and behavior are part of the physicalist's explanation. If you want to call those things a soul, fine. But you still have to realize taht the information dissipates without the medium to store and process them.

I am well aware of that. But you have to realise that it is entirely possible that, despite the dissipation of information it is not lost, as per my earlier analogy regarding the internet. Do you think it is unreasonable to consider the prospect that the information that dissipates maintains a relationship and, as a whole, continues to be aware of itself?

I think that is very unlikely. Can you suggest any mechanism by which that would work?

TheSage wrote:
I am well aware of how evolution works. I am not misunderstanding it, I am presenting an alternative mechanism. YOU are being incredibly closed-minded by saying it is not possible when you have absolutely no grounds for saying so. I accept evolution as much as the next person, but I have the wisdom to accept that new ideas will develop within evolutionary science due to research in quantum physics. YOU do not want to consider anything. I'm not trying to convince you to believe this is the absolute truth, but the very least an open-minded scientist would say is: "Wow, wouldn't that be interesting if it's true?" You telling me I misunderstand evolutionary process is just rude, and I don't appreciate being talked down to on the issue.

I don't think it's at all closed-minded to believe that evolution as we understand it is true due to the large body of evidence. I think it is incredibly arrogant to bring up ann idea with no supporting evidence, no clear mechanism by which it works, which contradicts well-supported theories like natural selection, and expect that everyone should consider it valid in some way. No brand of quantum weirdness is likely to fundamentally break evolutionary theory.

TheSage wrote:
Quote:
It is not taht they didn't need to mutate their genes, it's that if mutations occured, those mutations did not supply any advantage, and so speciation did not occur as much.

I am well aware of the effects of mutations not providing any advantage. But if mutation is random then there are also plenty of mutations that don't provide any DISadvantage in such circumstances and so these genes live on passively. Over a great deal of time, these could still result in a higher degree of speciation than we see.

I don't know if you realize this or not, but evolution is not caused by mutation, it's caused by natural selection. Mutation just happens all the time, and although it is needed to have the diversity required for evolution, a population usually will not change much unless there is selective pressure pushing it to change.

TheSage wrote:
I want to point out to everyone, once again, that I am not trying to prove this area of study to be true. It is way too early to be trying to do anything like that. However, I believe this line of inquiry has merit and to shun people who advocate it is to invite problems. If the scientific community gets too dogmatic, and current paradigms given more credit than they are due purely out of habit and arrogance, then science's development is going to be hindered significantly. As I said earlier, I would think the wisest approach would be to say to these people "I think this theory will be very important if it is true. In light of that, keep researching and trying to come up with more evidence." There's obviously not enough to prove the truth of some of these theories. However, they are perfectly reasonable alternatives.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Don't expect people to embrace pure speculation.

TheSage wrote:
Remember that Galileo had an incredibly hard time convincing the scientific community that the Copernican model of the solar system was better than the Ptolemaic model because it was inconceivable that the earth would revolve around the sun. Einstein said that while black holes were theoretically possible, he didn't believe they actually existed. He also said that quantum entanglement was impossible, but scientists have since proved that it's true.

Well, if it puts your mind at ease, I'll promise not to imprison you, to force you to renounce your theories, or to excommunicate you from the faith. But there is a difference between oppressing ideas, as the church did to Galileo, and simply being skeptical of them.

TheSage wrote:
Give alternative theories a chance because there are always paradigm shifts in science.

My major objection to what you have posted so far is that it isn't a theory. It's not specific enough. It sounds to me like saying "something weird happens at the quantum level, <and for reasons unspecified>, maybe the mind continues to exist after death". It's missing all the information between the commas. It seems pretty random to me.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: Then let

xamination wrote:

Then let me ask this:  You are the product of millions of chance events and the fact that you even exist is luck.  Well, maybe not luck, but you get what I'm going at.  Anyways, the fact remains that if one factor in the past were lsightly changed, you, you're conciousness, would not exist.

I can't comprehend that idea.  Death I understand.  Life, I think I understand.  But non-existance?  It is beyond me at this point. 

It's not beyond me. I have no problem identifying the fact that my specific existance is pure luck. I know that I as I exist today did not exist 5 years ago, and will not exist 5 years from now. I don't think there's a single molecule in my body that was there when I was born. I know that my experiences have shaped my views, and that under different circumstances I would be a different person.

TheSage wrote:

I actually like where you're coming from Xamination!

Here's some food for thought for those empiricists who feel that their existence is entirely physical.

It is almost certain that, through the many, many processes that you are all aware of regarding cell growth and ingestion of elements, not one atom in your body was there when you were born. What does that mean about a physical concept of the self?

If you thought something about energies in the brain, okay. If you are aware of the law of conservation of energy then you know that no energy is destroyed in any reaction. In this case, the reaction is death.

 

So, if memories are physical then they are insubstantial because the body is insubstantial. If they are energetic, then they never disappear, even if they do dissipate.

 

The 'soul' need not be a ghost that rises above you in near-death-experiences. Have some sense of poetry - the physical returns to the earth and the energetic dissipates to become one with the universe. What is to say you won't have some sort of conscious to an even higher degree when your thoughts are no longer contained inside your head, even if they cannot develop due to lack of the physical.

BAM! Like I said. Food for thought. Pun definitely intended.

You appear to be assuming that the molecular structure changes without the mind changing. This is demonstrably untrue. You as you exist today did not exist 5 years ago, or 20 years ago. An accurate comparison can be made with a computer. The hardware is the brain and body; the software is instinct, emotion, and acquired knowledge/experience; and the communication between the parts is chemical, physical, and energetic interaction. If enough was known about how everything works in the body, then resurrection would be dependent soley on correctly putting back together the pieces that made the structure in the first place. Death is perfectly equatable with turning off a computer. The only difference is that, for the moment, we're incable of turning a person back on.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TheSage
TheSage's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
If enough was known about how everything works in the body, then resurrection would be dependent soley on correctly putting back together the pieces that made the structure in the first place. Death is perfectly equatable with turning off a computer. The only difference is that, for the moment, we're incable of turning a person back on.

For the moment?! What if we can never do that? There's no grounds for believing that we ever could. You're refuting my suggestion with a statement that involves an action that is only theoretically possible. Everyone's having a go at me for speculating, but this is pure hypocrisy.

 

Everyone says I have no evidence but the only reasons I've heard in retort are assumptions and claims that some day all that we've seen in cyberpunk films will come true. When someone has said there's no reason to believe in my "claims," I could easily counter by saying that there is no reason not to believe them. That may sound childish, and I know how fond scientists can be of 'keep it simple' and other likewise proposals. However, you ask anyone that knows anything about probability theory that, even if something has only a 0.001% chance of being true, whether that thing should be ignored. The answer is no, because it's still possible. To ignore that possibility is to limit your understanding of the situation if it turns out to be true. And 0.001% is a very real possibility.

 

I don't believe that God exists, but I don't deny that it is possible that there is a god-like entity, because how can I prove that there isn't? That doesn't make me agnostic, because I will happily argue with conviction that there is no such thing as God. But it is that loophole of the 'lack of proof otherwise' that prevents ANY theist from being released from the shackles of religion. People are so uncomfortable with being uncertain of the truth that they cling to an idea with all their might and refuse to let go of it. This is the problem with organised religion - dogma. It's like a person can only be happy if they are sure they are right and everyone else is wrong. Most of you will die believing that there cannot possibly be anything remotely like a soul, but the scientific wheel will keep turning and it may or may not turn out that there IS such a thing. By suppressing, rather than engaging, claims like those I've made or quoted in this thread, you may have hindered progress.

 

I've presented no logical fallacies nor hypocrisy, so what have I done wrong? I believe that what I've done wrong is tried to discuss philosophy with a group of people that became atheists because they feel they've seen how "evil" religion is; a group of people that have made up their mind that modern science is almost perfectly right and we could acheive ultimate truth any day now (there are exceptions, some of the replies to my posts have been very insightful and I appreciate it). I thought it was difficult to argue against reductionism to physics as a philosophy of science with a group of physics students. I see now that it is even more difficult to mention the word "soul" to a group of atheists without being overwhelmed with accusations of naïvité. But someone has to play devil's advocate, don't they?

 

I'm not stamping my foot just because no one agrees with me. I couldn't care less if anyone at all in here agrees with any of the claims I've made. It's just that I've said again and again that these aren't necessarily my beliefs. All I wanted was a discussion on the implications of some peripheral avenues of thought in the scientific community. Some people were content enough to simply say "NO." to the original question posed by Xamination. How is that productive? I feel I've simply wasted my time in this thread trying to get people to be open-minded about a perfectly rational set of ideas. Some people think it's stupid to discuss things that cannot be empirically tested. I do not. This is why I enjoy discussing the existence of God.

 

I will respond to one more question by a fellow thread member in tonight's post -

Quote:
I think that is very unlikely. Can you suggest any mechanism by which that would work?
(With regards to post-death awareness of self)

Well, I mentioned quantum entanglement - where subatomic particles maintain a very close relationship at infinite distance when they were once part of the one object. Even if the body is simply made of physical substances - and the mind is a part of the body - the body deteriorating and no longer being able to process information does not necessitate that the parts of the body do not maintain some kind of relationship. If a living person is aware of him/herself while being composed of the same parts as when they die, what's to say that there is not a posthumous awareness of self? My speculation on top of this enlarges to include the thought that, through reincarnation, a "soul" might increase the amount of "matter" that holds a stronger realtionship to it and thus grows in a way akin to our concept of experience and understanding.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
TheSage wrote: Quote: If

TheSage wrote:
Quote:
If enough was known about how everything works in the body, then resurrection would be dependent soley on correctly putting back together the pieces that made the structure in the first place. Death is perfectly equatable with turning off a computer. The only difference is that, for the moment, we're incable of turning a person back on.
For the moment?! What if we can never do that?

Then we can never do that. It doesn't change the physics behind the metaphor being accurate.

TheSage wrote:
There's no grounds for believing that we ever could.

Bald faced lie. Just shows how little you know about a number of scientific fields.

TheSage wrote:
You're refuting my suggestion with a statement that involves an action that is only theoretically possible.

Another lie. The only reason I even included the words "for the moment" was for disclaimer against an absolute statement. I don't know if we will, but it seems possible, so I allowed for the possibility.

TheSage wrote:
Everyone's having a go at me for speculating, but this is pure hypocrisy.

This is pure reading comprehension failure.

TheSage wrote:
Everyone says I have no evidence but the only reasons I've heard in retort are assumptions and claims that some day all that we've seen in cyberpunk films will come true.

Lies.

TheSage wrote:
When someone has said there's no reason to believe in my "claims," I could easily counter by saying that there is no reason not to believe them.

Which is false. Your claims are made up from nothingness. Our claims are based in scientific facts.

TheSage wrote:
That may sound childish, and I know how fond scientists can be of 'keep it simple' and other likewise proposals. However, you ask anyone that knows anything about probability theory that, even if something has only a 0.001% chance of being true, whether that thing should be ignored. The answer is no, because it's still possible. To ignore that possibility is to limit your understanding of the situation if it turns out to be true. And 0.001% is a very real possibility.

Where are the probability equations of having a soul? I've never seen one. Where's the evidence the so-called equations are based on?

TheSage wrote:
Most of you will die believing that there cannot possibly be anything remotely like a soul, but the scientific wheel will keep turning and it may or may not turn out that there IS such a thing.

And it may turn out that god exists and is a flying piece of spaghetti. That's no reason to believe in the suggestion.

TheSage wrote:
By suppressing, rather than engaging, claims like those I've made or quoted in this thread, you may have hindered progress.

Lies again. You are hindering progress by making suggestions not based in fact. We are furthering progress by proving your baseless assertions as just that. Baseless assertions.

TheSage wrote:
I've presented no logical fallacies nor hypocrisy, so what have I done wrong?

Yet another lie.

TheSage wrote:
I believe that what I've done wrong is tried to discuss philosophy with a group of people that became atheists because they feel they've seen how "evil" religion is; a group of people that have made up their mind that modern science is almost perfectly right and we could acheive ultimate truth any day now (there are exceptions, some of the replies to my posts have been very insightful and I appreciate it).

I never became an atheist, I've always been one. I'm against religion because it forces itself on others who want nothing to do with it. Because it brainwashes people to believe in something that doesn't exist. Because life should be based on fact, not fiction.

TheSage wrote:
I thought it was difficult to argue against reductionism to physics as a philosophy of science with a group of physics students. I see now that it is even more difficult to mention the word "soul" to a group of atheists without being overwhelmed with accusations of naïvité.

The day you show a single piece of even cooincidental evidence of a soul it may become a debatable issue. Until you do it's mere fiction. Like santa claus and satan.

TheSage wrote:
But someone has to play devil's advocate, don't they? I'm not stamping my foot just because no one agrees with me. I couldn't care less if anyone at all in here agrees with any of the claims I've made. It's just that I've said again and again that these aren't necessarily my beliefs. All I wanted was a discussion on the implications of some peripheral avenues of thought in the scientific community. Some people were content enough to simply say "NO." to the original question posed by Xamination. How is that productive?

How is it not productive to dismiss a ridiculous claim as ridiculous?

TheSage wrote:
I feel I've simply wasted my time in this thread trying to get people to be open-minded about a perfectly rational set of ideas.

You've certainly wasted your time if you think any of your ideas mentioned here are rational.

TheSage wrote:
Some people think it's stupid to discuss things that cannot be empirically tested. I do not. This is why I enjoy discussing the existence of God.

And what are you accomplishing?

TheSage wrote:
I will respond to one more question by a fellow thread member in tonight's post -

Quote:
I think that is very unlikely. Can you suggest any mechanism by which that would work?
(With regards to post-death awareness of self)

Well, I mentioned quantum entanglement - where subatomic particles maintain a very close relationship at infinite distance when they were once part of the one object. Even if the body is simply made of physical substances - and the mind is a part of the body - the body deteriorating and no longer being able to process information does not necessitate that the parts of the body do not maintain some kind of relationship. If a living person is aware of him/herself while being composed of the same parts as when they die, what's to say that there is not a posthumous awareness of self? My speculation on top of this enlarges to include the thought that, through reincarnation, a "soul" might increase the amount of "matter" that holds a stronger realtionship to it and thus grows in a way akin to our concept of experience and understanding.

You can't even show a soul in the first place, let alone one remaining intact through the decay of the matter it was based in. There's no point in discussing the properties of something that doesn't even exist in the first place. People made up the idea of a soul, just like they did of a god. This kind of discussion belongs in a fiction novel.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


naomi94
naomi94's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2006-11-12
User is offlineOffline
the idea of the soul was for the idea of heaven


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
TheSage wrote: Everyone

TheSage wrote:
Everyone says I have no evidence but the only reasons I've heard in retort are assumptions and claims that some day all that we've seen in cyberpunk films will come true.

The only reference to fiction that I can see in a quick browsing of the thread was your reference to Final Fantasy. I don't know what you're referring to.

TheSage wrote:
When someone has said there's no reason to believe in my "claims," I could easily counter by saying that there is no reason not to believe them.

The reason to not believe them is simply that there is no reason to do so. It's just like when a theist says "you can't disprove god".

TheSage wrote:
That may sound childish, and I know how fond scientists can be of 'keep it simple' and other likewise proposals. However, you ask anyone that knows anything about probability theory that, even if something has only a 0.001% chance of being true, whether that thing should be ignored. The answer is no, because it's still possible. To ignore that possibility is to limit your understanding of the situation if it turns out to be true. And 0.001% is a very real possibility.

I ignore things every day that may be more likely. Such as the nontrivial chance that when I get in my car I may be killed in an accident. It doesn't stop me from getting in my car, and it doesn't even cross my mind on an average day. But we don't even know how probable your speculations are, so discussing probability is a little premature.

TheSage wrote:
I don't believe that God exists, but I don't deny that it is possible that there is a god-like entity, because how can I prove that there isn't? That doesn't make me agnostic, because I will happily argue with conviction that there is no such thing as God. But it is that loophole of the 'lack of proof otherwise' that prevents ANY theist from being released from the shackles of religion. People are so uncomfortable with being uncertain of the truth that they cling to an idea with all their might and refuse to let go of it. This is the problem with organised religion - dogma. It's like a person can only be happy if they are sure they are right and everyone else is wrong. Most of you will die believing that there cannot possibly be anything remotely like a soul, but the scientific wheel will keep turning and it may or may not turn out that there IS such a thing. By suppressing, rather than engaging, claims like those I've made or quoted in this thread, you may have hindered progress.

No one is suppressing you. You are free to investigate your hypothesies at your leasure, but when you bring them to others without any supporting evidence, you should expect them to be skeptical, and quite rightly so.

TheSage wrote:
I've presented no logical fallacies nor hypocrisy, so what have I done wrong? I believe that what I've done wrong is tried to discuss philosophy with a group of people that became atheists because they feel they've seen how "evil" religion is;

I don't think it does much good to make blind assumptions about why people 'became' atheists.

TheSage wrote:
a group of people that have made up their mind that modern science is almost perfectly right and we could acheive ultimate truth any day now (there are exceptions, some of the replies to my posts have been very insightful and I appreciate it). I thought it was difficult to argue against reductionism to physics as a philosophy of science with a group of physics students. I see now that it is even more difficult to mention the word "soul" to a group of atheists without being overwhelmed with accusations of naïvité. But someone has to play devil's advocate, don't they?

Modern scientific methodology is just about perfect. That doesn't mean that science has all the answers, or that it even can, but it has produced some great results. Science depends on hypothesies, unsupported claims, as a part of the process, but before you have evidence for your claims, people should not be expected to take them very seriously.

TheSage wrote:
I'm not stamping my foot just because no one agrees with me. I couldn't care less if anyone at all in here agrees with any of the claims I've made. It's just that I've said again and again that these aren't necessarily my beliefs. All I wanted was a discussion on the implications of some peripheral avenues of thought in the scientific community. Some people were content enough to simply say "NO." to the original question posed by Xamination. How is that productive?

It is productive because it is directly responsive to the original question. And if you want to discuss 'peripheral avenues of science', it would help to specify what exactly you want to discuss early. Not having evidence, or even a complete hypothetical model, does not make for good discussion.

TheSage wrote:
I feel I've simply wasted my time in this thread trying to get people to be open-minded about a perfectly rational set of ideas. Some people think it's stupid to discuss things that cannot be empirically tested. I do not. This is why I enjoy discussing the existence of God.

 

I will respond to one more question by a fellow thread member in tonight's post -

Quote:
I think that is very unlikely. Can you suggest any mechanism by which that would work?
(With regards to post-death awareness of self)

Well, I mentioned quantum entanglement - where subatomic particles maintain a very close relationship at infinite distance when they were once part of the one object.

Quantum entanglement has nothing to do with two particles having been part of 'one object'. I'm not a physicist, but my understanding of quamtum entanglement is as follows. The state of an electron is in superposition until we check it to see what state it is in. When we check on it, it resolves to one state. If the state of one affects the state of another, they are both in superposition but related, such that when you check the state of one, the other automatically resolves to a specific state.

TheSage wrote:
Even if the body is simply made of physical substances - and the mind is a part of the body - the body deteriorating and no longer being able to process information does not necessitate that the parts of the body do not maintain some kind of relationship. If a living person is aware of him/herself while being composed of the same parts as when they die, what's to say that there is not a posthumous awareness of self? My speculation on top of this enlarges to include the thought that, through reincarnation, a "soul" might increase the amount of "matter" that holds a stronger realtionship to it and thus grows in a way akin to our concept of experience and understanding.

The problem that I see with this idea is that consciousness does not seem to use quantum entanglement, so there are no standing entanglements between particles of any importance. The brain works on electrical and chemical signals, and consciousness, since it is a thought process, cannot function without these signals.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


TheSage
TheSage's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Vastet - I am not going to

Vastet - I am not going to discuss anything with someone who calls me a liar. That is blatantly rude and childish, so I will no longer reply to any of your comments until you apologise, except this one:

Quote:
And what are you accomplishing?

Well, hopefully a life with some meaning and working a ways to helping other people find meaning in their lives. Science isn't the only avenue of value in the world . There's art, music, literature and many other forms of creative expression that encourage personal growth. My choice is philosophy, where I can approach theories of human nature from a logical standpoint even where there is little scientific evidence to support one theory over another. For example, this semester I will be discussing these very issues of human mind - a debate which has no clear victor but it is easy to see why different groups of people support different theories. For example, most physical science students and hardcore atheists are physicalists...

Quote:
The reason to not believe them is simply that there is no reason to do so. It's just like when a theist says "you can't disprove god".

But that's true, you can't logically disprove God. I don't believe in God, I just don't find it very likely that He exists, especially in the Judeo-Christian form. You're right when you say that's no reason to believe in Him, but you can't just ignore the possibility simply because its not what you WANT to believe. I'm certainly not going to change my life simply because it's possible that God exists, there's no reason you should either. Just like your car-crash analogy. Just because it's possible doesn't mean you have to be a shut-in, and in this case just because it's possible doesn't mean you should be a theist.

Quote:
No one is suppressing you. You are free to investigate your hypothesies at your leasure, but when you bring them to others without any supporting evidence, you should expect them to be skeptical, and quite rightly so.

I never came into this discussion with the goal of convincing people of a theory. I presented some of my own arguments, as well as those of accomplished scientists and science writers, that discussed the topic I wanted to investigate. To be honest, I had hoped that some general discussion would shed some light on the things I was unsure of and would thus influence my thoughts on the subject. Instead, almost every reply has been hostile. I wish Darth Josh had replied because I actually enjoyed discussing philosophy with him and I'm sure he would have replied at least a little to the essay by Michael Talbot I posted.

No one wants to hear that the concept of a mind being totally limited to within the brain is merely an assumption. There is no reason to believe it is limited to that simply because no undisputed evidence has been found yet. Every theory needs to be continually re-tested to maintain validity, in this case the concept that a mind is located exclusively in the brain. As science progresses there will be more ways of re-testing this and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that it is possible that they will find something. It doesn't mean you believe in psychic phenomena, it doesn't make you a theist, it just means that you acknowledge possibility and that is what being a scientist is about!

Quote:
Modern scientific methodology is just about perfect.

I will be very interested to hear if you can describe scientific methodology to me in uncontraversial terms. I spent 5 months last year discussing this very topic with my lecturer and several Physics Majors. It is my firm belief that scientific methodology changes to accomodate for whatever it is a person wants to prove. That's not a bad thing, it's just historically apparent.

Quote:
Quantum entanglement has nothing to do with two particles having been part of 'one object'. I'm not a physicist, but my understanding of quamtum entanglement is as follows. The state of an electron is in superposition until we check it to see what state it is in. When we check on it, it resolves to one state. If the state of one affects the state of another, they are both in superposition but related, such that when you check the state of one, the other automatically resolves to a specific state.

Perhaps my initial description was inadequate. I only had a rough memory of an experiment I'd had described to me. I'm pretty sure I'd had described to me version of the EPR paradox involving the polarisation of photons. This experiment explains the results by invoking quantum entanglement theory and was initially invented as a thought experiment by Einstein and his colleagues (hence EPR) to disprove quantum entanglement. Your example of quantum entanglement is certainly true, but this is an additional application:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#Measurements_on_an_entangled_state

 

Quote:
Not having evidence, or even a complete hypothetical model, does not make for good discussion.

On the contrary, it should make for a far more open, hypothetical discussion. But that probably supposes that the various people have similar goals in the outcome of the discussion. Everyone in here was geared up to refute the possibility of a soul, instead of to explore it. There is a difference.

Quote:
The problem that I see with this idea is that consciousness does not seem to use quantum entanglement, so there are no standing entanglements between particles of any importance. The brain works on electrical and chemical signals, and consciousness, since it is a thought process, cannot function without these signals.

How can you say that the brain doesn't use quantum entanglement? If QE is true then it applies to all electron and subatomic systems. I would never deny that the brain requires electrochemical reactions to function, but I think you're you're stuck in a newtonian world of physics where atoms and subatomic particles are solid objects, not quanta. Quanta do not have a definite position - what does it mean when a single "object" can be in multiple spatial locations at any given time? It means a lot is possible because, if true, it means physical reality is not as limiting as it appears to our senses.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
TheSage wrote: Vastet - I

TheSage wrote:
Vastet - I am not going to discuss anything with someone who calls me a liar. That is blatantly rude and childish, so I will no longer reply to any of your comments, except this one:

If you don't like being called a liar, then don't lie. People who lie piss me off, and get called on it. I could care less if you like being called a liar, when you are a liar. Truth hurts. It may be I was a bit too liberal with the term in my last post, and I apologize accordingly. But my postition stands.

TheSage wrote:

Well, hopefully a life with some meaning and working a ways to helping other people find meaning in their lives. Science isn't the only avenue of value in the world . There's art, music, literature and many other forms of creative expression that encourage personal growth. Even if it turns out that their appeal becomes explainable by science it won't take away from the fact that they are separate from science as an investigation.

Fair enough.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
TheSage wrote: Quote: The

TheSage wrote:
Quote:
The reason to not believe them is simply that there is no reason to do so. It's just like when a theist says "you can't disprove god".

But that's true, you can't logically disprove God. I don't believe in God, I just don't find it very likely that He exists, especially in the Judeo-Christian form. You're right when you say that's no reason to believe in Him, but you can't just ignore the possibility simply because its not what you WANT to believe. I'm certainly not going to change my life simply because it's possible that God exists, there's no reason you should either. Just like your car-crash analogy. Just because it's possible doesn't mean you have to be a shut-in, and in this case just because it's possible doesn't mean you should be a theist.

And, using the same logic, the remote possiblity of the existence of a soul is also something I can happily ignore.

TheSage wrote:
No one wants to hear that the concept of a mind being totally limited to within the brain is merely an assumption. There is no reason to believe it is limited to that simply because no undisputed evidence has been found yet.

That's because it isn't an assumption. There is evidence to support it, hence it isn't an assumption. If the mind could operate outside the brain, why would brain damage be capable of effecting the brain?

TheSage wrote:
Every theory needs to be continually re-tested to maintain validity, in this case the concept that a mind is located exclusively in the brain

But you aren't posing a scientific challenge, you're suggesting something contrary to the science that is neither complete nor supported, and as you said, you are not a scientist and neither is your approach.

TheSage wrote:
Quote:
Modern scientific methodology is just about perfect.

I will be very interested to hear if you can describe scientific methodology to me in uncontraversial terms. I spent 5 months last year discussing this very topic with my lecturer and several Physics Majors. It is my firm belief that scientific methodology changes to accomodate for whatever it is a person wants to prove. That's not a bad thing, it's just historically apparent.

From wikiedia: Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy.

That's the basis. Specific fields are free to vary their methods, but this is the most important part.

TheSage wrote:
Quote:
Not having evidence, or even a complete hypothetical model, does not make for good discussion.

On the contrary, it should make for a far more open, hypothetical discussion. But that probably supposes that the various people have similar goals in the outcome of the discussion. Everyone in here was geared up to refute the possibility of a soul, instead of to explore it. There is a difference.

Here's what I've taken from your comments so far:

1. Quantum entanglement allows for small particles to have a relationship over great distances.

2. ???

3. Humans have an immortal soul. (profit)

I would be very interrested to discuss a working part 2 that can logically connect 1 and 3. Discussing part 3 without a part 2 seems like nothing but daydreaming. Sorta like asking "What if I had superpowers?" or "What if Ron Paul became president?".

I also find part 1 very interesting, and I think that it raises very interresting possibilities about the nature of reality itself. For instance, it could point to the possibility that reality is a complete tree of all quantum possibilites, in which we only experience a single thread traced in the tree. That's an interresting question, partially because the question is born directly from the weirdness observed in QE.

If all you want to do is speculate on 3, pose the question in a hypothetical way, like "What if humans had souls?" Don't try to assert factual claims, like the possiblity that QE can allow for a soul, that only attracts skepticism. Avoiding quasi-hypothesies will help to keep the skeptics away. But to me, it seems like part 3 is not really the part that could be potentially interresting.

TheSage wrote:
How can you say that the brain doesn't use quantum entanglement? If QE is true then it applies to all electron and subatomic systems. I would never deny that the brain requires electrochemical reactions to function, but I think you're you're stuck in a newtonian world of physics where atoms and subatomic particles are solid objects, not quanta.

And yet, the principles of chemistry still work. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, but life does not work at this level. Think big, like cell size.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.