30 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFWon't you be surprised. God is Perfect. His Plan and His Work are Perfect: Sovereign God doesn't make disposable souls.
I can see how the word "immaterial" can enter into it because of the human capacity for abstraction but the word "immortal" doesn't work. You have no proof whatsoever that your "soul" ~ your identity, your accumulated memories and thoughts, arranged into a perceived narrative which makes you uniquely you [I'm offering that thumbnail definition for the sake of ar ...[text shortened]... wn, and that has no impact on anyone's else's reality, nor upon the finality/actuality of death.
30 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySo you tell yourself, in public, all the time. You have not one piece of evidence though. Bumper stickerisms like "God doesn't make disposable souls" are not evidence. 🙂
Won't you be surprised. God is Perfect. His Plan and His Work are Perfect: Sovereign God doesn't make disposable souls.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by stellspalfie
can anybody give an even remotely logical reason for the existence and function of a soul. what does a soul do that a brain doesnt and visa-versa?
can anybody give an even remotely logical reason for the existence and function of a soul. what does a soul do that a brain doesnt and visa-versa?
I'll give you another while you're thinking about my last one.
There is something that philosophers call Intentionality as an ability of the mind but not of the brain.
Intentionality is the mind's aboutness or ofness. Mental states can point beyond themselves to other objects. Mind can transcend itself and be about other objects even if they do not exist.
I can have a thought about my wife, hope for a new automobile, dream of a unicorn. The mind has this ability to transcend itself and be of or about something else. This ability to be about something else is not the property of anything physcial.
Some have tried to equate the mind to a computer. Yes a computer can receive input and send output. It changes states to do these operations. Though it can receive instructions from a keyboard and send output to a printer, and though it changes internal states to perform these operations, it has no awareness of or about anything.
It seems that physical states do not have this aboutness or intentionality other things. Intentionality is evidence that the soul, the self, and/or the mind is not physical.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
30 Apr 14
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshiphttp://web.mit.edu/abyrne/www/intentionality.htmlcan anybody give an even remotely logical reason for the existence and function of a soul. what does a soul do that a brain doesnt and visa-versa?
I'll give you another while you're thinking about my last one.
There is something that philosophers call [b]Intentionality as an ability of the mind but not of the brain.
Intentio ...[text shortened]... ngs. Intentionality is evidence that the soul, the self, and/or the mind is not physical.[/b]
Parts 3 and to some extent 4 have a decent discussion of the reducibility of intentionality to the physical/natural.
I think it is better to discuss the reducibility of intentionality to the natural, than to the physical. Seeking natural explanations allows a wider scope of exploration.
So it can be a bit of a straw man argument to posit intentionality as a proof that there exists a non-physical soul, when the real question is whether there exists a non-natural (supernatural) soul, that is, a soul that cannot be usefully studied using one or more of the natural sciences. Whether the soul can be explained by the physical sciences is not the point. At least, it is not a very intelligent point at this moment in the advance of science.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
30 Apr 14
Originally posted by sonshipNo you are wrong. And it is not worth it to pursue the worldview that you pursue
sonship: "These mental cannot be measured in centimeters or weighed in grams"
stells: not true. thought is a series of electrical impulses, electrical impulses have mass and therefore have weight, which could be measured in grams and could if we had the technology be measured in centimeters.
No you are wrong. And it is not ...[text shortened]... to the surgeon. Your mind can remain a private matter which you can conceal for yourself alone.
wrong? in what way, its not a worldview, its a scientific view based on how we know the brain works.
In fact for one interested in Buddhism, I am surprised that you would adopt such a total physicalism view of reality.
not me sir, you must have me confused with somebody else. I have no particular interest in Buddhism other than an interest in anything new to me.
The [b] mind can be available to you on a private basis in which no one else can have access. But your brain could be thoroughly be made acquainted with by a brain surgeon.[/b]
the mind is not available because we currently do not have the technology to translate the electrical signals. we understand general areas of the the brain but we do not know where specific things are located. but I would put to you that 50 years ago we couldn't scan brain reactions at all. now we can, now we know where aggression is, we know where sexual thoughts are, we know where impulsive thoughts are, we know where mathematical thoughts are, we know where artistic thoughts are.
so what makes you think that we will not eventually with the progression of technology that we will not be able to locate each bit of thought, just like we can locate each zero and one in a computer?
[ b]A brain surgeon could gain more knowledge about your physical brain then you yourself have. But you private thoughts are beyond his or her domain to know. The surgeon may record, locate, and map out everything about your physical brain. [/b]
sorry sonship, but I find this ridiculous. a brain surgeon is like a pc engineer looking at a physical hardrive. by just looking at a hardrive you cannot see what is inside (which is electrical impulses triggering switches) the difference is we have the technology to look inside a hardrive and understand it 100% we currently do not have the ability to completely understand the insides of a brain.
The electrical bursts are not your thoughts.
yes they are. if not what are your thoughts and what is the purpose of a brain if its not to have thoughts?????
Locating electrical activity in the grey matter does not identify which of the books by say, Allen Watts, you might be recalling or which Zen koan you might be meditating on.
again this is a technology issue. the electrical activity does identify whats what in the brain, we just do not have the technology to translate it yet. what you need to ask yourself is why do brain scan machines show the same areas of the brain lit up when we have the same thoughts???? we know certain thoughts are in certain areas.
if you are dismissing thought as a brain function then you need to explain why the brain lights up in electrical activity in certain areas when we have certain thoughts.
Explained above in one way. Your brain can be available for knowledge to the surgeon. Your mind can remain a private matter which you can conceal for yourself alone
again not entirely true. science knows via brain scans roughly what you are thinking about, it cannot specify the exact thoughts and pseudo-images you are thinking, but that is because we do not have the ability to look that small within a functioning brain. the electrical impulses are there thought, thought is within the brain...........and I would ask you, does all, none or some thought originate within the brain??
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Apr 14
Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]No you are wrong. And it is not worth it to pursue the worldview that you pursue
wrong? in what way, its not a worldview, its a scientific view based on how we know the brain works.
In fact for one interested in Buddhism, I am surprised that you would adopt such a total physicalism view of reality.
not me sir, you must have me con ...[text shortened]... brain...........and I would ask you, does all, none or some thought originate within the brain??[/b]
wrong? in what way, its not a worldview, its a scientific view based on how we know the brain works.
We are far far from knowing everything about how the brain works.
sonship:
In fact for one interested in Buddhism, I am surprised that you would adopt such a total physicalism view of reality.
not me sir, you must have me confused with somebody else. I have no particular interest in Buddhism other than an interest in anything new to me. [/quote[
Oh. I was sure that in the past you expressed much interest in things Buddhist.
[quote]
sonship:
The mind can be available to you on a private basis in which no one else can have access. But your brain could be thoroughly be made acquainted with by a brain surgeon.
the mind is not available because we currently do not have the technology to translate the electrical signals.
Here again, you are expressing some kind of "faith" that we will someday be able to. This is Scientism as an omnipotent force that eventually accomplish any and everything by technology. This is a kind of religious fervor.
"Well be able to do it. I just KNOW we will."
Maybe not.
Science was never able to turn metal into gold either, though they tried for a long time.
we understand general areas of the the brain but we do not know where specific things are located. but I would put to you that 50 years ago we couldn't scan brain reactions at all.
Extrapolation without any sense of possible limitation is like religious fervor.
Yes, I do agree that that if we could transport someone from 1000 years ago in a time machine, right in the middle of downtown New York City, he might think he had been transported to a technological utopian paradise in which science can to the unimaginable.
I do think that in about 15 minutes he would realize that the same flawed people were living as in his own day.
Aside from that. You are admitting that something is currently impossible I think. I think you are telling me that you hope one day -
Stored in a physical medium of some kind, a person's thoughts about himself thinking, for example, will be there for examination.
In some physical device, consciousness will be laid out there for examination and tampering.
Take a minute and tell me something. If we took a barrel of all the chemicals which go into the make up of our brains, flew it to outer space. gave it a good tumbling spin, after these molecules and chemicals collide over a period of a few billion years, will that barrel become conscious of itself perhaps?
I mean the barrel tumbles for eons and eons and eons in outerspace, bumping the molecules in all kinds of combinations. Will after a trillion years, the barrel ask itself the question -
"What AM I anyway? And where did I come from ?"
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by stellspalfie
sonship:
Locating electrical activity in the grey matter does not identify which of the books by say, Allen Watts, you might be recalling or which Zen koan you might be meditating on.
again this is a technology issue.
Of course it is a technical issue that we cannot solve. You may express some religious like devotional faith that tomorrow we will learn to solve the technical limitation.
What you hope technicians may be able to do someday does not today prove that there is no substance dualism between Mind and Brain.
the electrical activity does identify whats what in the brain, we just do not have the technology to translate it yet.
So you cannot assert so positively that we know no Mind exists other than the grey matter of Brain.
Correlation of mental states with neurological activity on the brain doesn't prove they are identical.
what you need to ask yourself is why do brain scan machines show the same areas of the brain lit up when we have the same thoughts???? we know certain thoughts are in certain areas.
The answer to that is that there is some correlation going on between what is happening in one's mind and the brain states.
if you are dismissing thought as a brain function then you need to explain why the brain lights up in electrical activity in certain areas when we have certain thoughts.
It doesn't surprise me that some correlation is detected.
If you say that only physical activity of atoms in the material of the brain is responsible for all thoughts and actions then I think you throw human responsibility away.
If that is the case even what you believe about this is not based on your being persuaded of its rationality. The activity of atoms alone gives you your belief about the matter.
So I think an all-encompassing physicalism is self refuting. It is self referentially incoherent. Your reasoning is merely physical fissing.
If YOU are just matter, then your actions are not the result of free choice. Your choices are determined by the laws of chemistry and physics plus boundary conditions.
If you argue that I OUGHT to believe your explanation this implies that I CAN do it. If your physicalism is true than have no genuine ability to choose what I OUGHT to choose one action over another.
Your reducing the SOUL to the material brain calls for a radical revision of common sense notions about freedom, moral obligation, responsibility, and punishment.
J.R. Lucas speaks of the self-refuting nature determinism of Mind/Body Physicalism:
If what he [the determinist] says is true, he says it merely as the result of his heredity and environment, and nothing else. He does not hold his determinist views because they are true, but because he has such-and-such stimuli; that is, not because of the structure of the universe, together with the structure of the determinist's brain, is such as to produce that result ... Determinism, therefore, cannot be true, because if it was, we should not take the determinists' arguments as being really arguments, but as being only conditioned reflexes. Their statements should not be regarded as really claiming to be true, but only as seeking to cause us to respond in some way desired by them."
The determinism that results from purely physicalist view of humanity is self stultifying. The mental process we speak of are then totally determined. To the physicalist I am totally determined to either accept or reject determinism. I am causally determined it. No ground for doing so because it is true or false exists.
Can you say something about the barrel with all the chemicals making up the human brain, spinning for billions and billions of years in outer space.
Will such a colliding collection of all the brain's elements eventually result in the barrel becoming self conscious about itself ?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
02 May 14
Originally posted by sonshipWe are far far from knowing everything about how the brain works.wrong? in what way, its not a worldview, its a scientific view based on how we know the brain works.
We are far far from knowing everything about how the brain works.
[quote]
sonship:
In fact for one interested in Buddhism, I am surprised that you would adopt such a total physicalism view of reality.
not me sir, you must have me ...[text shortened]... the barrel ask itself the question -
[b]"What AM I anyway? And where did I come from ?" [/b]
i agree, but you seemed to be suggesting that because we can not see thought of an apple inside a mans brain that it must be happening somewhere else. my point is that we know that it is happening in the brain, we can see the same parts of the brain light up every time the man thinks apple. so we know the thought is there we just do know have the tech that can look microscopically inside a functioning brain to locate the specific synapse. you also seem to be saying that when man thinks apple that an actual image appears somewhere. this is not true, we know there is no image are brain, just as there is no image of an apple inside a hard drive stored with apple photographs.
Here again, you are expressing some kind of "faith" that we will someday be able to. This is Scientism as an omnipotent force that eventually accomplish any and everything by technology. This is a kind of religious fervor.
not at all. i am basing the majority of what im saying on what the current evidence points to. it points to all though occuring in certain parts of the brain and there appears to be no evidence or reason to think otherwise. my speculations on the future technology is not faith or fevor it is based on current technology and how that is developing. fevor and faith would be if i suddenly started believing that we would have future tech that is currently looking impossible.
"Well be able to do it. I just KNOW we will."
i do not know we will, i think we will based on the evidence of current scientific technology.
Science was never able to turn metal into gold either, though they tried for a long time.
they were still under the belief that jesus could turn water into wine. thats what happens to science when the bible is your guide rather than evidence.
I do think that in about 15 minutes he would realize that the same flawed people were living as in his own day.
probably, but thats not the issue.
Stored in a physical medium of some kind, a person's thoughts about himself thinking, for example, will be there for examination.
a persons thoughts are already examined. people are sent for brain scans to understand personality issues all the time. its a bit like an address. we know which countrys and states the thought has come from, we just dont know the street name and house number.
so the fact the 'normal' brains tend to fire in the same countries and states when similar thoughts are thought and brains from people with personality disorders show that their brain is firing from different countries and states or lacking a country or state shows that all the info the brain requires is coming from those locations in the brain.
Take a minute and tell me something. If we took a barrel of all the chemicals which go into the make up of our brains, flew it to outer space. gave it a good tumbling spin, after these molecules and chemicals collide over a period of a few billion years, will that barrel become conscious of itself perhaps?
i would doubt if very much.
if the barrel had all the components for simple cells to form and the conditions to support them and then also had all the correct chemicals for these cells to become more and more complex and also provide the conditions for all these things to thrive then one day in the far future at some point the life form may in fact as itself 'where did i come from'.
what does consciousness mean to you? is it connected to your earlier assertion that we are unable to look at our thoughts because they do not occur in our physical brain?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
02 May 14
Originally posted by sonship
sonship:
[b] Locating electrical activity in the grey matter does not identify which of the books by say, Allen Watts, you might be recalling or which Zen koan you might be meditating on.
again this is a technology issue.
Of course it is a technical issue that we cannot solve. You may express some religious like devotional f ...[text shortened]... all the brain's elements eventually result in the barrel becoming self conscious about itself ?[/b]So you cannot assert so positively that we know no Mind exists other than the grey matter of Brain.
there is no evidence to say otherwise.
Correlation of mental states with neurological activity on the brain doesn't prove they are identical.
as there is no evidence to say otherwise and lots of evidence to show that neurological activity is your mental state. then it makes more sense to stick to the evidence.
can you explain if the two were not directly connected what the purpose would be in having a neurological activity and a mental state? what are their specific roles?
the answer to that is that there is some correlation going on between what is happening in one's mind and the brain states.
again, could you explain why there is a correlation, if not answered in the previous question?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
02 May 14
[i]Originally posted by stellspalfie[/
sonship:We are far far from knowing everything about how the brain works.
i agree, but you seemed to be suggesting that because we can not see thought of an apple inside a mans brain that it must be happening somewhere else.[/b]
I think we know by experience that the apple is "happening somewhere else". In a none spatial realm, in an abstract dimension the apple is happening.
[quote]
my point is that we know that it is happening in the brain, we can see the same parts of the brain light up every time the man thinks apple.
I think we know that there is some electrical neurological activity happening in the material of the brain. That is all, I think.
Suppose I THINK not about the apple but upon the thought that I am THINKING? I don't believe such electrical activity on the brain could reveal that that is what is going on.
The people whose brains were monitored as they were dreaming had to be WOKEN UP and ASKED what they were dreaming of. The examiners could not look at the activity and know what was being dreamed about without ASKING the dreamer what was being dreamed of.
so we know the thought is there we just do know have the tech that can look microscopically inside a functioning brain to locate the specific synapse.
I am happy to accept that you have a hope one day they will be able to look at the jumping of the detectors and TELL the person when she wakes up WHAT she was dreaming about.
This is a kind of devotional "faith" (for lack of a better word) in the invincibility of science and technology.
Okay. You say "One day we''ll be able to tell."
And one day we also may be able to turn metal into gold after all.
you also seem to be saying that when man thinks apple that an actual image appears somewhere.
To borrow from our human language as best we can - the apple is "IN" the man's MIND. Is it not ?
Do you not believe in abstract objects?
Where is the number 10 ?
I know it is between 9 and 11. But WHERE in the physical universe is the number 10 ?
Better yet, where is the argument that you are making ?
We have to borrow from limited human language and say the argument is in your MIND.
I think the Christian has an answer to this substance dualism. There is an Eternal Divine Person in whose image we were created. This means we correspond to this Creator in certain ways.
Time for a Bible passage here:
"The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him." (Zech. 12:1)
This Creator stretched for the heavens - created the physical universe.
This Creator established the planet earth - He laid the foundation of the earth.
This Creator formed a physical man from the earth and formed an immaterial entity within this man for the PURPOSE of corresponding to God and contacting God.
God "formed the spirit of man within him."
sonship:
Here again, you are expressing some kind of "faith" that we will someday be able to. This is Scientism as an omnipotent force that eventually accomplish any and everything by technology. This is a kind of religious fervor.
not at all. i am basing the majority of what im saying on what the current evidence points to. it points to all though occuring in certain parts of the brain and there appears to be no evidence or reason to think otherwise. my speculations on the future technology is not faith or fevor it is based on current technology and how that is developing. fevor and faith would be if i suddenly started believing that we would have future tech that is currently looking impossible.
Cont. latter.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
02 May 14
Originally posted by sonship
sonship:[b]We are far far from knowing everything about how the brain works.
i agree, but you seemed to be suggesting that because we can not see thought of an apple inside a mans brain that it must be happening somewhere else.[/b]
I think we know by experience that the apple is "happening somewhere else". In a none spatial realm, in an ...[text shortened]... that we would have future tech that is currently looking impossible.
Cont. latter.[/b]just a quick point before you continue. you keep referring to people 'dreaming'. we are not talking about dreams. a brain scan happens while you are awake.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by stellspalfie
i do not know we will, i think we will based on the evidence of current scientific technology.
Would you like to volunteer as our first experimental guinea pig to see if we can pull out the thoughts from your brain and place them somewhere to be studied ? You'd be greatly advancing science. Let's see if we can slice out your consciousness from your brain ?
they were still under the belief that jesus could turn water into wine. thats what happens to science when the bible is your guide rather than evidence.
If the Bible only said "There was once this man who turned water into wine. And his name was Jesus" then I too would be skeptical.
But, stellspalfie, the power of His deed is preceded by the power of His morality, His wisdom, His impeccable ethics, His penetrating insight into the human dilemma. He speaks as God. He discerns as God. He utters words with an authority that only God would have.
Having noticed the power of His personality we see some confirming evidence that He can perform a "sign" which astounds us. The "sign" is consistent in ability with a God who could call into existence all of space, time, matter, and energy from nothing.
Such a Person as this also healed the sick, raised the dead, fed the multitude with limited food stuffs, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead.
What is the saying ? "All things considered" ?
Concerning our time traveler from a previous millennia coming to our technological world of the 21rst century:
sonship:
I do think that in about 15 minutes he would realize that the same flawed people were living as in his own day.
probably, but thats not the issue.
Okay. That is not exactly the issue ( but it is related ).
sonship:
Stored in a physical medium of some kind, a person's thoughts about himself thinking, for example, will be there for examination.
a persons thoughts are already examined. people are sent for brain scans to understand personality issues all the time. its a bit like an address. we know which countrys and states the thought has come from, we just dont know the street name and house number.
Do you think that this kind of belief is Atheist friendly ?
How do you know then that there is not some HUGE, BIG, THINKER and we are not being brought into existence in the same way ?
Do you assume that evolution stopped with human beings ?
If you want to argue that the brain became thus so complex that consciousness just had to come into existence, how do you know that evolution could not also produce a God ?
If you think that such confidence in evolution's ability to turn matter into consciousness and thought provides some safe haven for you against a Deity, think again.
Why could not then some Deity who is thinking us up have evolved a trillion times beyond "human being" ?
I don't think your escape hatch rules out a possibly more supreme being, a Deity creating all of us and all we see out there, just the way you insist real thought will be located physically in the brain.
What makes you think your philosophy is some "safe haven" from the existence of a god ?
what does consciousness mean to you? is it connected to your earlier assertion that we are unable to look at our thoughts because they do not occur in our physical brain?
Good question. Maybe we can start with Descartes - "I think therefore I am."
This is like defining Time. We all know what it is. We all have trouble defining what it is.
I am aware that I exist.
I think you also exist with a lot of other people.
I believe that a self aware Creator created me in His own image.
So because of that I too am self aware.
I do not believe that MATTER arranged itself in a certain level of complexity that the result had to be consciousness.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by sonshipWould you like to volunteer as our first experimental guinea pig to see if we can pull out the thoughts from your brain and place them somewhere to be studied ? You'd be greatly advancing sciencei do not know we will, i think we will based on the evidence of current scientific technology.
Would you like to volunteer as our first experimental guinea pig to see if we can pull out the thoughts from your brain and place them somewhere to be studied ? You'd be greatly advancing science. Let's see if we can slice out your consciousnes ...[text shortened]... MATTER arranged itself in a certain level of complexity that the result had to be consciousness.
millions of people have their brain scanned and their thoughts recorded as data each year. you can get computer generated cg real-time movies of your thoughts. there are computer games and hardware that read your thoughts and translate them to movements on a screen. xbox are launching a home device for translating brain waves to control the console. you think left and the avatar on the xbox goes left, you think volume up and the volume goes up. so human thought exists with in the brain. do you disagree.
Do you think that this kind of belief is Atheist friendly ?
absolutely. why would you think otherwise?
How do you know then that there is not some HUGE, BIG, THINKER and we are not being brought into existence in the same way ?
there is no evidence to suggest there is a big thinker.
Do you assume that evolution stopped with human beings ?
If you want to argue that the brain became thus so complex that consciousness just had to come into existence, how do you know that evolution could not also produce a God ?
i do not assume evolution has stopped.
i do not suggest consciousness had to come into existence, only that it did.
i don not know that evolution could not produce a god, only that there is no evidence that it can.
If you think that such confidence in evolution's ability to turn matter into consciousness and though provides some safe haven for you against a Deity, think again.
matter is not turned into consciousness, consciousness is made of matter.
did i say anything that remotely suggested that thought provides a safe haven against a deit????? i dont believe in a deity, if there were a deity i have no reason to think my thoughts could provide security.....i dont see where you got this from or where you are going with it.
Why could not then some Deity who is thinking us up evolved a trillion times beyond "human being" ?
its a possibility, but no evidence suggests this so it would be folly to believe it.
I don't think your escape hatch rules out a possibly more supreme being, a Deity creating all of us and all we see out there, just the way you insist real thought will be located physically in the brain.
there is a mountain of solid evidence and a bunch of technology that functions and relies on thought being located in the brain......there is no evidence of a deity.
What makes you think your philosophy is some "safe haven" from the existence of a god ?
i didnt say it did. you do not need a haven from something that doesnt exist. if god does exist then i have no reason to think that my 'philosophy' provides a safe haven.
a question for you -
when you say consciousness do you really mean self-awareness?