Souls

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Its not as simple as that, but I will agree, this is where midstrength comes in, it really helps those that dont know their limits.

Friends should help, but the ego is often too strong to be helped by anyone other than itself.
Thats why some find it useful to talk about their souls, because they associate that word with some kind of purity and ratio ...[text shortened]... a half-fabricated religon, but if its going to stop someone from murdering, then I say its good.

For more reasons than it helps prevent people from killing other people I would not be too interested in trying to de-convert people (though I'd be happy if the ratio beteen moderates to fundamentalists was higher in the moderates favour) - I'm not the strong atheist I used to be when I first joined these forums. This doesn't mean I'll ask my questions and accept stock answers though. There are many things theists and believers in some sort of supernatural spirituality (like yourself sometimes) assert which in my mind I cannot find a way to render feasible even in a hypothetical sense.
To this end I'm not trying to be a dick; I'm quite confident my questions will have no impact on a person's faith in some god (nor would I want to be charged as culpable for such a thing happening).

Originally posted by Agerg
The man of flesh cannot fathom or even begin to consider spiritual matters, and attempts to do so will result in nothing more than (to him) gibberish.
I agree with you here, whatever exists beyond my ability to perceive or measure is something I cannot, with any degree of honesty (on my part), attempt to describe[hidden]indeed it is for that reason I hav ...[text shortened]... rikes before understanding how this was a strike...I can't see it.[/b]

they would also need to know for some "snapshot" of me...
This was the assumed on my part. If we've succeeded in reducing everything down to the 1's and 0'sReveal Hidden Content, it's but a matter of time before we're able to format the whole schpeel. Replication isn't too far behind. That being said, even though it is conceivable for such replication to take place, such cloning will fail to do anything more than mimic how the real person acted; will be unable to stay step-for-step with the person because of the missing dynamic.Reveal Hidden Content

Your response in the strike two portion borrows from the home teamReveal Hidden Content, when you impart will into the otherwise sterile environment. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that reason itself is another byproduct of chemical reactions, unable to navigate under its own sail.

Now we're down to strike three, where I challenged you to consider doing something of which you've never thought of doing previously. 'Thinking of' and 'wanting to' cannot here be held equivalent. The challenge was to think of something which you've never thought of. For instance, painting the Statue of Liberty's toenails as she floats in a vat of JelloReveal Hidden Content, slowly careening through deep space. But don't take my example: make your own. That accomplished, you will have willfully acted without either influence from within or impact from without.

Originally posted by Agerg
For more reasons than it helps prevent people from killing other people I would not be too interested in trying to de-convert people (though I'd be happy if the ratio beteen moderates to fundamentalists was higher in the moderates favour) - I'm not the strong atheist I used to be when I first joined these forums. This doesn't mean I'll ask my questions and acc ...[text shortened]... aith in some god (nor would I want to be charged as culpable for such a thing happening).

It is interesting you say you are not as strong a athiest as you were...

Labelling is a huge problem in gneral. We are all unique, and generally only fundies like to be labelled.

The two best labels I've come across on this forum is "non-dualist" and "Zennist".
Having said that, I often shudder to be thought of as such.

I know the term athiest is more descriptive than a label, but still, if you subscribe too strongly to anything....well ,imo, it's just not healthy. (I'm serious about being not serous 😵 )

Originally posted by Agerg
You've effectively tried to answer my question as in the comical find 'x' joke as illustrated in this jpeg:

http://mid4.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/find_x.jpg

This isn't very helpful! Which part of my 'identity' cannot be described in terms of physical process and interactions of these processes? For example, if *me* can be accounted for by pro ...[text shortened]...

[b]Why do you believe this to be true, what have you done to substantiate this?[/b]

In your OP you said;

"I think of *me*, i.e. the being that perceives the world around him, likes/dislikes things, thinks, plans, etc... as a manifestation of (or the interaction between) the material configuration of my brain with respect to inputs detected by my physical senses and experiences, memories/goals, etc.. catalogued within my material brain."

You think of *you* as a bundle of electrochemical reactions to the physical world.

Is that all *you* can think about it? No, of course not. But you need scientific testable proof of the existence of a part of you that you can't perceive with your physical senses.

It ain't gonna happen. So get over it. No, I mean get over it as in think in a different way about what *you* are.

If I were you I'd be thinking the same way. i.e. 'I want to know the truth, but I don't want to be deceived or diluted into thinking something's there when it's not'.

Then there's the flip side of that coin. 'I don't want to be blind to the possibility that there is something more to this life than just the grave'.


All we have to go on is all creation and our physical senses. Or is it? If we have a "soul" as distinct from our physical bodies, that is more than just a bundle of nerves, then why aren't we simply aware of it? If we have a spirit that is designed to commune with the Creator/God, then why isn't it glaringly obvious?

Maybe it is obvious. Maybe there's something wrong with us. Jesus man, don't start thinking like that! The next thing you know you'll end up converted. 😉

Originally posted by Doward
I think its important to stress here that nothing eminates from within that is not already contained within.

And I think it is important to stress that that is patently untrue. Language for example is not 'created' within but is learnt from without.

The alcohol has no sentience, it by itself cannot create language or anything else.
What does sentience have to do with it? Surely you realize that computers can talk too?

All thoughts words and deeds eminate from the self, regardless of how polluted the traffic ways may be.
So you believe the self to be totally non-physical and the physical aspects of the brain to be mere 'pathways'? If so, how do you explain the fact that changes to the physical brain cause, in every observable way, changes to the 'thoughts, words and deeds' emanating from it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I think it is important to stress that that is patently untrue. Language for example is not 'created' within but is learnt from without.

[b]The alcohol has no sentience, it by itself cannot create language or anything else.
What does sentience have to do with it? Surely you realize that computers can talk too?

All thoughts words and deed ...[text shortened]... se, in every observable way, changes to the 'thoughts, words and deeds' emanating from it.

What does sentience have to do with it? Surely you realize that computers can talk too?


Computers only appear to talk. The truth is that they do not initiate any new or non programmed responses. It's "speech" is simply a matter of responding to a specific progaramming which a human being has determined. In truth one talks not with a computer, but with the human who programmed it.

So you believe the self to be totally non-physical and the physical aspects of the brain to be mere 'pathways'? If so, how do you explain the fact that changes to the physical brain cause, in every observable way, changes to the 'thoughts, words and deeds' emanating from it.

I don't believe I stated that. I simply said that the words and actions we perform are ours and ours alone. one cannot "blame" alcohol for saying something stupid, that stupid thought was already in our brain on some level of conscoiusness.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]they would also need to know for some "snapshot" of me...
This was the assumed on my part. If we've succeeded in reducing everything down to the 1's and 0's[hidden]ala DNA mapping and what-not[/hidden], it's but a matter of time before we're able to format the whole schpeel. Replication isn't too far behind. That being said, even though it is co e willfully acted without either influence from within or impact from without.[/b]

Sorry...I might have been barking up to the wrong tree in that I thought your three strikes were a connected chain as in:
consider (1), this implies (2), now (3) I argue renders (2) false, and so taking the contrapositive gives (1) false
as opposed to treating them as 3 points each of which to assault my position seperately.
That said, my first two parts would have stood alone, anyway...

This was the assumed on my part. If we've succeeded in reducing everything down to the 1's and 0'sReveal Hidden Content

ala DNA mapping and what-not

, it's but a matter of time before we're able to format the whole schpeel. Replication isn't too far behind. That being said, even though it is conceivable for such replication to take place, such cloning will fail to do anything more than mimic how the real person acted; will be unable to stay step-for-step with the person because of the missing dynamic.Reveal Hidden Content

Which, in the next step, you touched upon in your response

I don't see how great a part knowing ones DNA sequence will play in deducing the exact location, velocity, and acceleration of all the fundamental particles which contribute in some way the the brain's operation - especially when we consider that DNA has little juristiction over what I eat, how often I eat, how I exercise my brain, what injuries/viruses I'll pick up in my lifetime, etc...all of which have had some role in process. It to me sounds a very complex problem which we as humans are not ready to even formulate precisely yet, let alone solve.
But again, even supposing it would later be true this happens, if we were to suppose the reconstruction were accurate enough to capture my thought processes then provided this *me_2* is placed in situations which also mimic my ownReveal Hidden Contentsituations then his responses should also mimic my own. That is to say how I perceive and react to a situation is more in response to that situation and how far it's components impact on me, to that end I do see it as a purely electrochemical process.[1]
In otherwords I do see reason as the byproduct of chemical reactions - navigating in response to the winds and gales which are most pressing at any given time.


Now we're down to strike three, where I challenged you to consider doing something of which you've never thought of doing previously. 'Thinking of' and 'wanting to' cannot here be held equivalent. The challenge was to think of something which you've never thought of. For instance, painting the Statue of Liberty's toenails as she floats in a vat of JelloReveal Hidden Content

color of your choice

, slowly careening through deep space. But don't take my example: make your own. That accomplished, you will have willfully acted without either influence from within or impact from without.
Ok...I didn't see this as the challenge you'd set for the reasons given in my first paragraph. The first thing to note is that there is indeed an action from without, this action is your suggestion on your part that I should try to think of something I've never done before, since without it I would not (in this situation at least) have need to consider such a thing.
However, something I've never thought of before is the number 1287 jumping out of my monitor and hitting me on the head with a set of nunchucks whilst singing "ten green bottles". To arrive at the idea I should construct this particular thought I had to search for something which was disjoint from anything I can recall having thought of prior, and return the first solution I find (which was this). In order to successfully construct this thought this I have to first recall what nunchucks look like, and whilst doing this keep reinforcing in my mind the notion of 1287 (not 1281 or 1286 or 1267, ...), i.e. make sure I don't forget this unimportant number in favour of anotherReveal Hidden Contentand get it into my short term memory. I also have to recall how "ten green bottles" goes. So far I've been mainly accessing my memory and parts of my brain that deal with reasoning as I search for something new to think of (and I'm doing this *in response* to your challenge!). The next part involves juxtaposing {monitor, moving 1287, moving nunchucks, ten green bottles, me, my head} and again to form a coherent picture here I'll be relying on my reasoning skills as well as using parts of my brain that deal with spatial awareness and vision, and so on...(to be pedantic here would take an age and a pretention of knowing anymore than the next man when it comes to neurosceince).
The salient point however is that constructing this thought is a mechanical process and the process itself was kicked off by your suggestion of it.[2]









---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Since for any given moment I am performing a some collection of actions and concentrating on a small set of objectives, these may or may not be distracted by other events, if not distracted I shall continue as I was doing until I achieve my goals or my concentration wanes in this endeavour so to make other actions take on a greater weight of priority (an 'internal distraction'😉. If I retain sufficient concentration then I will follow the dictates of my own wiring and mindset and act somewhat mechanically so to realise these objectives. Throughout this activity I'll be constantly evaluating whether I'm approaching or diverging away from this course and take corrective steps where necessary. In doing this I'll be accessing various sections of my brain which of course reduces to the symphony of reactions and communication between different neurons. (I may attempt a detailed specific example later)
If on the otherhand, either of the distraction types mentioned above takes precedence then this in effect gives me a new objective or collection of them and so the same procedure takes place.

2)In other situations where I think of something I've never thought of without outside suggestion, the thought would have to occur to me: "I'm doing nothing important right now...what things do I want to do that are important - none...how should I occupy myself (considering a collection of mundane activities...)...ah thinking of something I've never thought of looks like a nice time wasting endeavour". I.e. the act of doing this would be in response to having nothing better I want to do!

Originally posted by karoly aczel
It is interesting you say you are not as strong a athiest as you were...

Labelling is a huge problem in gneral. We are all unique, and generally only fundies like to be labelled.

The two best labels I've come across on this forum is "non-dualist" and "Zennist".
Having said that, I often shudder to be thought of as such.

I know the term athiest ...[text shortened]... to anything....well ,imo, it's just not healthy. (I'm serious about being not serous 😵 )

I haven't become less of an atheist per-se, more I'm not the sort of person who is of 100% conviction there can exist no gods (whatver such a god may be); I merely content myself with the knowlege there is no way for me to possibly know and carry on with the default position of non-belief in any particular or any set of gods.

Originally posted by Agerg
I haven't become less of an atheist per-se, more I'm not the sort of person who is of 100% conviction there can exist no gods (whatver such a god may be); I merely content myself with the knowlege there is no way for me to possibly know and carry on with the default position of non-belief in any particular or any set of gods.

if I am understanding you correctly, yours is a far more open minded approach than most athiest's. If more Christians, Muslims, etc... were a bit more open minded we might find some common ground.

Originally posted by josephw
In your OP you said;
"I think of *me*, i.e. the being that perceives the world around him, likes/dislikes things, thinks, plans, etc... as a manifestation of (or the interaction between) the material configuration of my brain with respect to inputs detected by my physical senses and experiences, memories/goals, etc.. catalogued within my material brain art thinking like that! The next thing you know you'll end up converted. 😉

In your OP you said;

"I think of *me*, i.e. the being that perceives the world around him, likes/dislikes things, thinks, plans, etc... as a manifestation of (or the interaction between) the material configuration of my brain with respect to inputs detected by my physical senses and experiences, memories/goals, etc.. catalogued within my material brain."
That's true, I did say this


You think of *you* as a bundle of electrochemical reactions to the physical world.
Pretty much

Is that all *you* can think about it? No, of course not. But you need scientific testable proof of the existence of a part of you that you can't perceive with your physical senses.
I never said that...I'm asking you to think of a counter example to my claim that my thoughts and actions can be reduced to elementary processes and give the matter some thought before delivering it --- not asking for proof that something exists you cannot perceive or measure.

It ain't gonna happen. So get over it. No, I mean get over it as in think in a different way about what *you* are.
I quite like the way I think of myself at present...In lieu of a convincing argument against my position it seems pretty coherent.

If I were you I'd be thinking the same way. i.e. 'I want to know the truth, but I don't want to be deceived or diluted into thinking something's there when it's not'.
I'm not asking what is true (or more what you *think* is true), I'm asking you to demonstrate in satisfactory terms (i.e. non-trivial answers) that what I think is false. I.e. negate my universal statement and show there exists at least one situation for which my premise doesn't hold - a good counter-example will suffice.

Then there's the flip side of that coin. 'I don't want to be blind to the possibility that there is something more to this life than just the grave'.
That is not something I have implied is my position on this matter...I'm more asking the question in my OP as matter of philosophical curiousity for now.

All we have to go on is all creation and our physical senses. Or is it? If we have a "soul" as distinct from our physical bodies, that is more than just a bundle of nerves, then why aren't we simply aware of it? If we have a spirit that is designed to commune with the Creator/God, then why isn't it glaringly obvious?

Maybe it is obvious. Maybe there's something wrong with us. Jesus man, don't start thinking like that! The next thing you know you'll end up converted.
It is not *I* who is thinking like that.

Originally posted by Doward
Computers only appear to talk.

I dispute that. They talk by the standard definition of the word 'talk'. If you have another definition, lets hear it, then we can discuss whether humans or machines are capable of it.

The truth is that they do not initiate any new or non programmed responses.
Again, I dispute that. I am a programmer, and I can assure you that programming does not have to be deterministic.

It's "speech" is simply a matter of responding to a specific progaramming which a human being has determined. In truth one talks not with a computer, but with the human who programmed it.
Again, I dispute that. Computers and their programming can be far more complicated than simply giving out what a single programmer put in. Their product is a result of engineers (who design the hardware), programmers, and various environmental effects too. Similarly humans and their thoughts are a product of their hardware, environmental effect, and what they learn from other humans.

I don't believe I stated that. I simply said that the words and actions we perform are ours and ours alone. one cannot "blame" alcohol for saying something stupid, that stupid thought was already in our brain on some level of conscoiusness.
Again, I dispute that. You are essentially claiming that every possible thing we could ever say already exists in our brain 'at some level of consciousness'. I guess it would be hard to disprove, but I think it is somewhat obvious that it is untrue.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dispute that. They talk by the standard definition of the word 'talk'. If you have another definition, lets hear it, then we can discuss whether humans or machines are capable of it.

[b]The truth is that they do not initiate any new or non programmed responses.
Again, I dispute that. I am a programmer, and I can assure you that programming does ...[text shortened]... ss it would be hard to disprove, but I think it is somewhat obvious that it is untrue.[/b]

I think you are stretching the definition of "talk" near to the breking point. If you want to have an honest and intelligent conversation, great, if you want to continue with sillyness, then find someone else.

Originally posted by Doward
I think you are stretching the definition of "talk" near to the breking point. If you want to have an honest and intelligent conversation, great, if you want to continue with sillyness, then find someone else.

I am honestly using the definition of 'talk' that I am familiar with. As I said, if you have a different definition, I am open to hearing it. We can even use your definition for the remainder of the thread. But until you give your definition I cannot know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]In your OP you said;

[i]"I think of *me*, i.e. the being that perceives the world around him, likes/dislikes things, thinks, plans, etc... as a manifestation of (or the interaction between) the material configuration of my brain with respect to inputs detected by my physical senses and experiences, memories/goals, etc.. catalogued within my material ...[text shortened]... u'll end up converted. [/b]
It is not *I* who is thinking like that.[/b]

"It is not *I* who is thinking like that."

Thinking like what? That your thinking isn't flawed?

Man, you don't even know whether or not you have a soul.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"It is not *I* who is thinking like that."

Thinking like what? That your thinking isn't flawed?

Man, you don't even know whether or not you have a soul.[/b]

I have no wish to engage you here in topics like

- Perhaps we are not ready to see our soul yet...wait until heaven, but you must first find Jesus!
- Just have faith, it'll be alright
- But the soul is an adjunct of the holy spirit and chapter blah verse blah of the Bible says blah blah
- You don't think you have a soul!?? This is terrible; I pity you that you have not received the spiritual insight that should be expected of any human...I will try to redouble my efforts to bring you closer to "God" in the future
.
.
.
and so on...

I am interested in attempts to answer my question as set in the OP. It has been posed in a way that you should be able to attack my position without having to describe the supernatural; again using a response I gave to Doward earlier you should try something akin to the following:



-------------------
Suppose I think that all behaviour of all road-worthy cars can be reduced to the workings of their respective engines in some way..then you would hit back with:
ah...but what about the painted on "go faster stripes"?Reveal Hidden Content

The behaviour of the car in this case promping approving/envious comments in other humans \"ooh! nice paintwork...wish my car had those!\"

What do they have to do with the engine!??? 😕[/b]