There are a lot of corruptions of language that opens this up in ways I don't intend ....

Children have more soul than adults
This music has soul
He is a happy soul
etc etc

While obviously the word "soul" is a theistic reference to that which bears reference to our identity it also has other definitions that take it outside of such colloquialisms (such as the soul bears witness or receives judgement and is held accountable etc etc)

In other words it is greatly influential, if not integral to our existence, seeming to be subject to some law of result beyond the laws of result that pertain to the body. If the soul exists then obviously it is a uniform substance, and its being is not constituted as that of a christian soul or a jewish soul etc etc (that said - feel free to offer scriptural evidence if you think otherwise)

Generally speaking it becomes impractical to refer to the soul (or even to deny the soul, as in the case of Buddhism) without reference to scriptural authority, since we could very well slip in to identifying the mind with the soul (which is generally how the word "soul" finds its usage in common english).

So the topic of discussion here is the offering of interpretations of scriptural evidence that can establish many of the points raised in the poll or other issues such as the plurality/oneness/duality of the soul.

There's no such thing as a soul. first you need to stablish some premises. What is it? If it exists do you have emperical evidence? If you got nothing above, why do you believe so much BS, or is just so easy to get gullible dimwits like yourself to believe just about anything. I got a Green Leprechan in my garage! It's true.

There's no such thing as a soul. first you need to stablish some premises. What is it? If it exists do you have emperical evidence? If you got nothing above, why do you believe so much BS, or is just so easy to get gullible dimwits like yourself to believe just about anything. I got a Green Leprechan in my garage! It's true.

I have a subconscious. :)

That is not your sould though!

That is not your sould though!

I also have instincts.

Some times I have flashes of inspiration. ;)

Some times I have flashes of inspiration. ;)

Yeah ok, and I can think. ;)

Yeah ok, and I can think. ;)

I need empirical evidence of that. :D

I need empirical evidence of that. :D

No problem, I'll sign up for scientific tests and come back with a little certificate that states that I am a thinker. At least I hope it will? :(

There's no such thing as a soul. first you need to stablish some premises. What is it? If it exists do you have emperical evidence? If you got nothing above, why do you believe so much BS, or is just so easy to get gullible dimwits like yourself to believe just about anything. I got a Green Leprechan in my garage! It's true.

Let me guess .... you voted for the last option on the poll right?
:D

So the topic of discussion here is the offering of interpretations of scriptural evidence that can establish many of the points raised in the poll or other issues such as the plurality/oneness/duality of the soul.

What does scripture have anything to do with this? We have already established that your epistemology thread was based on faith that the Bible is true because it says so. It offers no evidence or calculations on any of it's obviously far-fetched imaginary claims.

Every living breathing organism has a soul. I don't know about plants, but definitely humans and animals.

What does scripture have anything to do with this? We have already established that your epistemology thread was based on faith that the Bible is true because it says so. It offers no evidence or calculations on any of it's obviously far-fetched imaginary claims.

Sorry -I wasn't informed that this was the conclusion reached by examination of that thread -I wasn't even aware that you had contributed to it - but we can take it up here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57085) if you wish

Every living breathing organism has a soul. I don't know about plants, but definitely humans and animals.

So why do you say this - in otherwords what is the connection between breathing and a soul - is there any scriptural body of work you can quote or is it something you arrived at through some other means? Why wouldn't a tree also have a soul since they are also evidenced to respire?

I couldn't answer the poll. There is no such thing as a soul, but I am interested in the topic. It is probably one of the most important since without the soul concept all significant religions fall apart.

sam,

I have a subconscious.Maintained by your brain.

sam,

I also have instincts. Maintained by your brain.

sam,

Some times I have flashes of inspiration. Caused by your brain.

sam,

I need empirical evidence of that. Simply look at the massive evidence found through clinical studies of brain damaged patients. Everything you've listed can be shown to be affected or lost when the brain is damaged. The conclusion is overwhelmingy simple and transaparently obvious. All these things including thoughts are derived from the brain. There is absolutely no reason to suspect there is anything else.

I created my brain.

Cris, if your brain dies, it doesn't have to mean that you (consciousness) die. The body and soul just lose connection with each other. Think of the body as a tool, like a hammer, and the soul as the user. Without you, the hammer can do nothing, but you can continue to live and do many things without the hammer.

The soul is a "less material" body inside the material body.

Every living breathing organism has a soul. I don't know about plants, but definitely humans and animals.

Soul is the one who feels, right? That's why we say to cruel people: "don't you have a soul!?"

Cris, I was just fooling around with Godless. :p

Thanks for the answers though.

Hmm, what about my gut instinct and my spine thrilling chills?

And why does my chest hurt when I'm unhappy?

Or my teeth ache when I hear chalk squeaking? ;)

Just taking advantage that you know the answers!

I created my brain.

Cris, if your brain dies, it doesn't have to mean that you (consciousness) die. The body and soul just lose connection with each other. Think of the body as a tool, like a hammer, and the soul as the user. Without you, the hammer can do nothing, but you can continue to live and do many things without the hammer.

The soul is a "less material" body inside the material body.



Soul is the one who feels, right? That's why we say to cruel people: "don't you have a soul!?"

I don't think people here will be able to understand that analysis. I would suggest you go post here (http://forum.muppetcentral.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12) to meet others at your level of intellect.

The way i see the soul is this (and I've met a few other people who see it the same way):

In our universe everything is made of vibrations. Vibrations such as Electromagetic Radiation, wind, sound, waves of all kinds. There are even those who say the universe itself is a wave. Different kinds waves are generally measured by their frequencies, or how many wavelengths per second.

I see each of these frequencies as a soul--but that they are all part of the same soul, the soul of the universe, which is simply energy. Our minds are affected by certain frequencies, because our minds work on some of these frequencies, usually at the low end of the spectrum such as below 10 Hz. A certain brainwave pattern is associated with sleep, and another with active thinking, and another with active but not thinking (like when you are mesmerized when you drive really hard or play an instrument intensly). Through each of these different frequencies, you act differently--your motivations based on past events are shuffled differently to fuel different motivations.

So not only all living things, but all non-living things as well have a soul. In fact, the structure of this entire universe is what creates the interactions which i call the soul of the universe--an entity which transcends awarness and simply is, without thought.

Cris, I was just fooling around with Godless. :p

Thanks for the answers though.

Hmm, what about my gut instinct and my spine thrilling chills?

And why does my chest hurt when I'm unhappy?

Or my teeth ache when I hear chalk squeaking? ;)

Just taking advantage that you know the answers!

LOL! What about the pain in my arse? :p

There are a lot of corruptions of language that opens this up in ways I don't intend ....

Children have more soul than adults
This music has soul
He is a happy soul
etc etc

While obviously the word "soul" is a theistic reference to that which bears reference to our identity it also has other definitions that take it outside of such colloquialisms (such as the soul bears witness or receives judgement and is held accountable etc etc)

In other words it is greatly influential, if not integral to our existence, seeming to be subject to some law of result beyond the laws of result that pertain to the body. If the soul exists then obviously it is a uniform substance, and its being is not constituted as that of a christian soul or a jewish soul etc etc (that said - feel free to offer scriptural evidence if you think otherwise)

Generally speaking it becomes impractical to refer to the soul (or even to deny the soul, as in the case of Buddhism) without reference to scriptural authority, since we could very well slip in to identifying the mind with the soul (which is generally how the word "soul" finds its usage in common english).

So the topic of discussion here is the offering of interpretations of scriptural evidence that can establish many of the points raised in the poll or other issues such as the plurality/oneness/duality of the soul.

The poll is missing a 'souls don't exist' option.

C7,

Cris, if your brain dies, it doesn't have to mean that you (consciousness) die.Yes it does. You are entirely dependent on your brain. YOU are your brain.

The body and soul just lose connection with each other.Nonsense. There is only body.

Think of the body as a tool, like a hammer, and the soul as the user.Nope. Think of your brain as YOU and the rest of your body are your peripherals.

Without you, the hammer can do nothing, but you can continue to live and do many things without the hammer.Nope. Without your brain you will cease to exist.

The soul is a "less material" body inside the material body.The soul is a fantasy concept born of ignorance and does not exist.

Every living breathing organism has a soul. I don't know about plants, but definitely humans and animals. ”Prove it.

Soul is the one who feels, right? No. The brain is responsible for feelings, both physical and emotional.

That's why we say to cruel people: "don't you have a soul!?"Different concept.

sam,

Cris, I was just fooling around with Godless. Difficult to tell with most theists. You are definitely more like an atheist.

Hmm, what about my gut instinct and my spine thrilling chills?Umm brain?

And why does my chest hurt when I'm unhappy?Stress - brain related.

Or my teeth ache when I hear chalk squeaking? Sensory feedback to your brain.

Just taking advantage that you know the answers! Just insert "brain" as the answer if you think of any further questions.

;-)

Crunchy,

The poll is missing a 'souls don't exist' option. Theists are generally so brainwashed that they have difficulty even comprehending the concept.

C.S. Lewis said it best: "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body."

Crunchy,

Theists are generally so brainwashed that they have difficulty even comprehending the concept.

It's not the brainwashing that's so bad. I can find a variety of topics that would show every person on earth has some delusion. It's the inability to recognize a delusion for what it is that plagues theists... an immune system which can't identify the infection.

Theism in particular binds itself so tightly to a person's identity that to remove it is effectively a form of identity suicide for most believers.

I know we've discussed this before and a human-relationship and identity substitute that doesn't rely on magical thinking is probably the best option (of course combined with adequate general education).

I don't think people here will be able to understand that analysis. I would suggest you go post here (http://forum.muppetcentral.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12) to meet others at your level of intellect.

dont say that... i might cry.

Nonsense. There is only body.

How do you know that? Because you've seen everything, because you know everything?

You are like with the universe, you know... the universe must have always existed, otherwise it wouldn't exist now either.

You control your body. So you and your body are not the same. The person is not you either, it's your creation... it's a mask...

take it off... quick!!

Nope. Think of your brain as YOU and the rest of your body are your peripherals.

The brain is a piece of matter which allows the soul/consciousness to express itself in greater variety in the material world.

consciousness flows everywhere, like a river... it passes through things... brains... everything...

The soul is a fantasy concept born of ignorance and does not exist.

That thought is born from arrogance.

No. The brain is responsible for feelings, both physical and emotional.

The brain creates the stuff which causes feelings, but the soul is the one who feels them.

Different concept.

"You've got spirit!"

Maybe that explains what spirit is.

Umm brain?

what makes the brain do what it does?

Just insert "brain" as the answer if you think of any further questions.

yeah, just like theists insert "god" =)

but atheists usually insert "natural law" instead.

Theists are generally so brainwashed that they have difficulty even comprehending the concept.

Atheists are also "brainwashed", just differently. They have difficulty to comprehend things like gods and souls.

How do you know that? Because you've seen everything, because you know everything?

Do you still believe in Santa?

sam,

Difficult to tell with most theists. You are definitely more like an atheist.


I'll take that as a compliment, coming from you.

Just insert "brain" as the answer if you think of any further questions.

*serious question*

I think it is not so simple. WIth our higher consciousness, we exist on other plane that is not corporeal and that is usually dismissed by the Western atheists since spirituality to them conjures up woo-woos. But to ignore that plane of consciousness, which is separate from the physical and the mental, is to ignore a very essential and very crucial aspect of our humanity. You will not find this in the East, where even Buddha who did not believe in God, did recognise the existence of a higher plane of consciousness, the duality of mind which causes distress and which needs to be regulated and appeased for detachment and relief. It is possibly oe reason why atheism is so depressing for those in the West, because ignoring that part of the consciousness does not relieve the distress from it.

C7,

“ Originally Posted by Cris
Nonsense. There is only body. ”

How do you know that? Because you've seen everything, because you know everything?Because now we know about the complexity of the brain the soul concept ceases to have any credibility. It is not something we need to look for it is simply a redundant concept. Duality was originally devised as a way to explain personality, emotions, feelings, thoughts, memories, etc, because our ancestors had total ignorance of the possibilities of neural networks, electricity, and the immensely complex world of micro biology. Now that we have significant insights into this new world we no longer need the fantasy ideas of souls.

You are like with the universe, you know... the universe must have always existed, otherwise it wouldn't exist now either.No, I am nothing like the universe. While the universe is infinite I am transient and simply a part of it.

You control your body. So you and your body are not the same. The person is not you either, it's your creation... it's a mask... I am a set of unique bio-electrical patterns maintained by my neural networks that reside in my brain. If my brain is damaged or destroyed then I will be damaged or destroyed. My body is simply a supporting framework for those patterns and a means for me to interact with the universe..

The brain is a piece of matter which allows the soul/consciousness to express itself in greater variety in the material world.That’s fine if you define soul as a set of bio-electrical patterns maintained by neural networks. And is otherwise entirely dependent on the material existence of a brain.

consciousness flows everywhere, like a river... it passes through things... brains... everything...Total nonsense. It is a result of brain activity and confined to your head.


“ The soul is a fantasy concept born of ignorance and does not exist. ”

That thought is born from arrogance.No, just simple observation, and an appreciation for what is credible and what isn’t.

The brain creates the stuff which causes feelings, but the soul is the one who feels them.More nonsense. There is absolutely nothing to indicate there is anything other than a brain involved.

what makes the brain do what it does?Electron flow primarily.

“ Just insert "brain" as the answer if you think of any further questions. ”

yeah, just like theists insert "god" =)Major difference – we know the brain exists and we understand a lot of what it does. There is absolutely nothing remotely similar to the claim for gods.

Atheists are also "brainwashed", just differently. They have difficulty to comprehend things like gods and souls.BS. I was once a theist as were many atheists.

Sam,

I'll take that as a compliment, coming from you.It was partly intended as such.

WIth our higher consciousness, we exist on other plane that is not corporeal and that is usually dismissed by the Western atheists since spirituality to them conjures up woo-woos.No idea what a woo-woo is, but I reject it because it is pure unsupported fantasy.

But to ignore that plane of consciousness, which is separate from the physical and the mental, is to ignore a very essential and very crucial aspect of our humanity.And to imagine such a plane exists is to delude oneself that there is anything other than the physical.

.. the duality of mind which causes distress and which needs to be regulated and appeased for detachment and relief.There is no duality, there is only brain, and if under stress one can meditate and relieve that condition.

It is possibly one reason why atheism is so depressing for those in the West, because ignoring that part of the consciousness does not relieve the distress from it.You are erroneously attempting to group all atheists together again as if they think with one mind and agenda. Atheists only have one thing in common – an absence of belief in gods; don’t try to assign them other properties. I am atheist and have none of the troubles you want to imply.

*serious question*

I think it is not so simple. WIth our higher consciousness, we exist on other plane that is not corporeal and that is usually dismissed by the Western atheists since spirituality to them conjures up woo-woos.

What the heck is "higher consciousness"? Do you have any evidence that some "non-corporeal plane" exists?

It is possibly oe reason why atheism is so depressing for those in the West, because ignoring that part of the consciousness does not relieve the distress from it.

I have seen the type of depression you are talking about amongst some atheists. I suspect its a combination of factors which might include:

* Being an often hated minority by society.
* Being socially, financially, and emotionally abused by family members whom disagree with their positions.
* Not having a method of human relationship that provides the psychological benefits of religion (I suspect this is most severe one for adults).

These are real concrete reasons with very likely alot of supporting evidence... hardly a magical-thinking substitute such as ignoring the zaboombafoo plane of consciousness.

What always makes me laugh is that when an atheist says there's no soul we can percieve, or that there's no evidence for god, or there's no reason to think there's some "higher" plane of existence, the theist will say "well how do you know?" and go on about how limited we are and how they know for sure that there's obviously a soul, a god, and some non-material/mental "plane" of existence. Theists are funny.

They get some interesting feeling in their head or chest and it immediately becomes something clearly not physical or "mental". "I feel so sad". Sadness is clearly a transcendent experience not of your brain, but one that exists on some ethereal other "plane".

Atheists know what they know, and what they don't. Theists don't know anything, and don't know that they don't.

Show me a soul. No? You say the soul is some immaterial essence that can't be measured? Then how do you know it exists my all powerful theist friend? Oh, right. You just need the correct epistemology, or read the bible/quran/etc. Or self-reflect (and make sure you have a dictionary of philosophical terms handy to make your pronouncements sound really cool and impressive).

Now watch the thousands of rambling words pour forth from the theists, dancing and convoluting and avoiding anything of substance.

It's high comedy.

Sam,

It was partly intended as such.


Thanks
No idea what a woo-woo is, but I reject it because it is pure unsupported fantasy.


Religion does not have a monopoly on spirituality.

And to imagine such a plane exists is to delude oneself that there is anything other than the physical.


Hmm so the emotional, the psychological is all invented? The effect of trauma, of subconscious repressions is all fantasy?


There is no duality, there is only brain, and if under stress one can meditate and relieve that condition.

There is duality, between the part of the mind that creates the stress we experience, the recognition of futility, pleasure, desire, greed, frustration and the part of the mind that can relieve this stress, which also requires recognition.

Why are married people less likely to fall sick or commit suicide?
Are they physically different?

You are erroneously attempting to group all atheists together again as if they think with one mind and agenda. Atheists only have one thing in common – an absence of belief in gods; don’t try to assign them other properties. I am atheist and have none of the troubles you want to imply.

Then you must feed your spirituality, only you don't recognise it as such.

What the heck is "higher consciousness"? Do you have any evidence that some "non-corporeal plane" exists?
Theists have absolutely NO intention of letting a little thing like evidence influence their thoughts on gods and souls and such.

Isn't it the nature of a self reenforcing delusion to vehemently deny anything that might contradict it?

Now, you watch. Some theist will say "Ha, yeah. Just like your atheistic delusion, right!"

And we will say, "No, we don't make any claims for the existence of the unseen and unmeasurable."

And they will descend into nonsensical babble about the philosophical and ethereal nature of blah blah blah.

What the heck is "higher consciousness"? Do you have any evidence that some "non-corporeal plane" exists?


I'm assuming you can observe some difference between yourself and an ape. :p


I have seen the type of depression you are talking about amongst some atheists. I suspect its a combination of factors which might include:

* Being an often hated minority by society.
* Being socially, financially, and emotionally abused by family members whom disagree with their positions.
* Not having a method of human relationship that provides the psychological benefits of religion (I suspect this is most severe one for adults).

Maybe it's just depression because of a lack of spiritual support system.

These are real concrete reasons with very likely alot of supporting evidence... hardly a magical-thinking substitute such as ignoring the zaboombafoo plane of consciousness.

Hopefully one of these you will realise that your plane of consciousness includes a subconscious and an unconscious; something which is not as advanced in apes. ;)

Theists have absolutely NO intention of letting a little thing like evidence influence their thoughts on gods and souls and such.

Isn't it the nature of a self reenforcing delusion to vehemently deny anything that might contradict it?

Now, you watch. Some theist will say "Ha, yeah. Just like your atheistic delusion, right!"

And we will say, "No, we don't make any claims for the existence of the unseen and unmeasurable."

And they will descend into nonsensical babble about the philosophical and ethereal nature of blah blah blah.


Bad mood, baby? :D

I also have instincts.

Actually that's precisely what you don't posses Sam. Instinct is "inborn knowledge" everything that you know, you have learned, nothing is inborn. Your brain as a baby girl was a blank slate. This is the reason why I implied to LG in another thread: ( "religion" claims automatic knowledge ) There is no such thing as "just knowing" a hunch, a feeling, all of these are just subjective things, that you believe to be true, but in fact it may not be as you wish or believe.

BTW LG this morning when I posted, there was no poll! ;)

Godless

Actually that's precisely what you don't posses Sam. Instinct is "inborn knowledge" everything that you know, you have learned, nothing is inborn. Your brain as a baby girl was a blank slate. This is the reason why I implied to LG in another thread: ( "religion" claims automatic knowledge ) There is no such thing as "just knowing" a hunch, a feeling, all of these are just subjective things, that you believe to be true, but in fact it may not be as you wish or believe.

BTW LG this morning when I posted, there was no poll! ;)

Godless

Everything I know I have learned?

Nope I don't believe that at all. We are all born with an instinct for hunger. We recognise and accept sweet tastes as babies, because we instinctively recognise them as a source of energy, we reject bitter tastes as they are not.

We have an instinctive desire for love as well as shown by the stunted growth and poor survival rate of children who are not "handled" after birth.

Do you consider these behaviours as learned?

We use instinctive behaviours in babies as milestones of development:

Instincts in humans can also be seen in what are called instinctive reflexes. Reflexes, such as the Babinski Reflex (fanning of the toes when foot is stroked), are seen in babies and are indicative of stages of development. These reflexes can truly be considered instinctive because they are generally free of environmental influences or conditioning.

Concepts of innateness were at the heart of Darwin's approach to behavior and central to the ethological theorizing of Lorenz and, at least to start with, of Tinbergen. Then Tinbergen did an about face, and for some twenty years the term 'innate' became highly suspect. He attributed the change to Lehrman's famous 1953 critique in which he asserted that classifying behaviors as innate tells us nothing about how they develop. Although Lehrman made many valid points, I will argue that this exchange also led to profound misunderstandings that were ultimately damaging to progress in research on the development of behavior. The concept of 'instincts to learn', receiving renewed support from current theorizing among geneticists about phenotypic plasticity, provides a potential resolution of some of the controversies that Lehrman created. Bioacoustical studies, particularly on song learning in birds, serve both to confirm some of Lehrman's anxieties about the term 'innate', but also to make a case that he threw out the genetic baby with the bathwater. The breathtaking progress in molecular and developmental genetics has prepared the way for a fuller understanding of the complexities underlying even the simplest notions of innate behavior, necessary before we can begin to comprehend the ontogeny of behavior.

NATURAL PHENOMENA
Most people call natural phenomena such as various survival and mating behaviors "instinct". But "instinct" is a mystical term that does not exist in humans or in animals. The term "instinct" implies inborn or innate knowledge, which is a false notion. The use of "instinct" to explain behavior is to explain nothing. Moreover, the "instinct" explanation closes further investigation into that which is not yet understood or known. "Instinct" is a mystical, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific term. For, accepting that catchall term as an explanation precludes further intellectual and scientific efforts to discover the reasons for various behaviors. Accepting "instinct" as an explanation for any human behavior constitutes accepting the mystical concept that knowledge can be inborn or innately acquired without the self-efforts required for acquiring all knowledge. Likewise, all living species function through definable, understandable biological actions and reactions, not through undefinable, mystical "instincts". To explain anything as "instinct" is a default to the mystic's desire for automatic, inborn, effortless knowledge.
click (http://www.neo-tech.com/advantages/advantage57.html)

Instinct for hunger? LOL.. that's not instinct, that is natural stimuly, you feel pain in your tummy feeding yourself causes the pain to go away.

Instincts in humans can also be seen in what are called instinctive reflexes. Reflexes, such as the Babinski Reflex (fanning of the toes when foot is stroked), are seen in babies and are indicative of stages of development. These reflexes can truly be considered instinctive because they are generally free of environmental influences or conditioning

Reflexes are instincts? LOL... Yea right! and the sourse, some mythical based study, right, no. Reflexes are naturally caused by electrical stimuli in the brain, that's why the baby wigles it's toes. Instinct is just simply something that does not exist. It's a term used to give up, of how the knowledge was aquired, but easily explained. Your subconscious is like a computer, it records everything you have experienced since your little buns got slaped, and you awaken to this cruel world. With that your "computer-subcounsciousness" starts recording every single second of life experience. You actually learned everything you know from the get go, your tabula raza begins to fill.

Godless

We do indeed speak readily of bird songs as innate or learned. Songs of the North American flycatchers (family Tyrannidae) are clearly innate; the song of the Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe develops normally in a bird raised in social isolation (Kroodsma and Konishi 1991). On the other hand, songs of sparrows (family Emberizidae) are learned; in nature songs develop very differently from when male sparrows are raised out of hearing of their own kind. Because sparrows copy tutors in detail, we don't hesitate to classify these as learned songs and this classification may serve some value in preparing us for the likelihood that patterns of natural song variation will be very different in sparrows and flycatchers. But the more you think about it the less straightforward this labeling procedure really is, raising all the questions that Lehrman was so concerned about. If we conclude that flycatcher songs are innate, and sparrow songs are not innate, does it follow that concepts of innateness have no relevance at all to song development in sparrows? The answer is unclear. A Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia raised in isolation produces an isolate song that is clearly abnormal, but if we examine it closely, there are still quite a few Song Sparrow-like features (Marler and Sherman 1985). It has several parts, like normal song, with a pure tonal quality and a normal overall duration (Fig. 3). What do these normal features of isolate song represent? Are they innate? If so, how should we interpret the abnormal aspects of isolate song? Perhaps it would be useful to regard song as a kind of mosaic and to classify some features as innate, and others as not innate?

You did not address the issue of sweetness vs. bitterness.

Why do babies like sweet taste but not bitter?

After all, adults drink black coffee which is bitter, so why do babies reject a bitter taste?

Ayn Rand believed that human nature is fixed. What separates men from animals is their rationality. Although man is a physical entity, his mind cannot be reduced entirely to his brain or body.

Based on a review of her mature philosophy as expressed in Atlas Shrugged and her essays, Rand rejects the idea that man has innate instincts or drives.[3] In “Galt Speaks,” Rand defines “instinct” as “an unerring and automatic form of knowledge.” (Rand, For the New Intellectual, pp. 121-22.) Needless to say, she repeatedly rejected any automatic form of knowledge. She concedes that there is a “desire to live,” but asserts that it is not “automatic.” (p. 122.) She explicitly denies that man has a tendency to evil. (p. 137; see also p. 21.)[4] On the other hand, she likely rejected the concept that man has a tendency to good. And, it is important to realize, in spite of Rand’s optimistic view of human nature, her judgment on history was for the most part negative.Click (http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand_and_Evolution.shtml)

Sam we are moving kind of fast here. Give me a break!

Kids reaction to bitter taste to sweet is not "insnitntual" it's experimention, his brain rejects the bitter taste compared to the sweet, but not all kids were alike, I for one as a child loved coffee. :) Beer and Champane. As an adult however I don't like the taste of beer, Champane, and do drink coffee with plenty of sugar. lol..

Newborn reflexes:

(I'm guessing you don't have children)
These reflexes are a standard in the medical profession; ask any pediatrician.

http://wo-pub2.med.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/PublicA.woa/8/wa/viewHContent?website=wmc+pediatrics&contentID=2630&wosid=tbVOT3562bonWLEArJTk7M

The following are some of the normal reflexes seen in newborn babies:

* root reflex
This reflex begins when the corner of the baby's mouth is stroked or touched. The baby will turn his/her head and open his/her mouth to follow and "root" in the direction of the stroking. This helps the baby find the breast or bottle to begin feeding.

* suck reflex
Rooting helps the baby become ready to suck. When the roof of the baby's mouth is touched, the baby will begin to suck. This reflex does not begin until about the 32nd week of pregnancy and is not fully developed until about 36 weeks. Premature babies may have a weak or immature sucking ability because of this. Babies also have a hand-to-mouth reflex that goes with rooting and sucking and may suck on fingers or hands.

* Moro reflex
The Moro reflex is often called a startle reflex because it usually occurs when a baby is startled by a loud sound or movement. In response to the sound, the baby throws back his/her head, extends out the arms and legs, cries, then pulls the arms and legs back in. A baby's own cry can startle him/her and begin this reflex. This reflex lasts about five to six months.

* tonic neck reflex
When a baby's head is turned to one side, the arm on that side stretches out and the opposite arm bends up at the elbow. This is often called the "fencing" position. The tonic neck reflex lasts about six to seven months.

* grasp reflex
Stroking the palm of a baby's hand causes the baby to close his/her fingers in a grasp. The grasp reflex lasts only a couple of months and is stronger in premature babies.

* Babinski reflex
When the sole of the foot is firmly stroked, the big toe bends back toward the top of the foot and the other toes fan out. This is a normal reflex up to about 2 years of age.

* step reflex
This reflex is also called the walking or dance reflex because a baby appears to take steps or dance when held upright with his/her feet touching a solid surface.

Sam we are moving kind of fast here. Give me a break!

Kids reaction to bitter taste to sweet is not "insnitntual" it's experimention, his brain rejects the bitter taste compared to the sweet, but not all kids were alike, I for one as a child loved coffee. :) Beer and Champane. As an adult however I don't like the taste of beer, Champane, and do drink coffee with plenty of sugar. lol..

I'm not talking about kids, I'm talking about newborn babies.

Try this experiment if you can get hold of a baby- let the baby taste honey or bitter chocolate.

Ayn Rand believed that human nature is fixed. What separates men from animals is their rationality. Although man is a physical entity, his mind cannot be reduced entirely to his brain or body.

Based on a review of her mature philosophy as expressed in Atlas Shrugged and her essays, Rand rejects the idea that man has innate instincts or drives.[3] In “Galt Speaks,” Rand defines “instinct” as “an unerring and automatic form of knowledge.” (Rand, For the New Intellectual, pp. 121-22.) Needless to say, she repeatedly rejected any automatic form of knowledge. She concedes that there is a “desire to live,” but asserts that it is not “automatic.” (p. 122.) She explicitly denies that man has a tendency to evil. (p. 137; see also p. 21.)[4] On the other hand, she likely rejected the concept that man has a tendency to good. And, it is important to realize, in spite of Rand’s optimistic view of human nature, her judgment on history was for the most part negative.Click (http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand_and_Evolution.shtml)



You take the word of a philosopher (who was an objectivist and had no concept of the importance of the society to the normal development of the individual) to that of medical doctors? :p

All without even reading it all, is natural stimuli. NOT imbread knowledge. To explain somethiing as "imbread knowledge" is nothing more then a rejection for further research in stimuly behavior. All puppies learn to fight for their chance at the bitch's tits, the puppy does not "automatically" know were the tit is located, this is a learned behavior.. Same as the kid. Don't understemate the power of your computer-subconcsciousness recording everysecond of your life.

Medical doctors make assumptions as well. That can't be proven.

Ignoring the fact that there may be innate causes of behaviour will hamper research, not help it.

Looks like athiests are going to have their own version of science in a few years, based on their views of what is "fact".

All without even reading it all, is natural stimuli. NOT imbread knowledge. To explain somethiing as "imbread knowledge" is nothing more then a rejection for further research in stimuly behavior. All puppies learn to fight for their chance at the bitch's tits, the puppy does not "automatically" know were the tit is located, this is a learned behavior.. Same as the kid. Don't understemate the power of your computer-subconcsciousness recording everysecond of your life.

Explain the song birds.

You might check David Buss's text "Evolutionary Psychology". In the field of human evolutionary psychology you will often come accross terms like evolved psychological mechanisms in place of instincts. Terms like this may better characterize the species and individual variation and flexibility of brain/mental/behavioral events better. There is still the assumption that genes can to some degree influence brain structure and activity, which can influence thought and behavior. How important the environment is may vary considerably with the particular type of activity (and the particular individual). Psychologist's are often particularly interested in the part of the environment that makes up psychological experiences and learning.

Click (http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005aK7)

At least I'm not alone in this! LOL..

Explain the song birds.

They heard songs when they were chicks!! LOL... Learned. :p

You take the word of a philosopher (who was an objectivist and had no concept of the importance of the society to the normal development of the individual) to that of medical doctors? :p
Calling Ayn Rand a philosopher is perhaps giving her too much credit.

Calling Ayn Rand a philosopher is perhaps giving her too much credit.

Another idiot who thinks he knows Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand (IPA: [ajn ɹænd], February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (Russian: Алиса Зиновьевна Розенбаум), was a Russian-born American philosopher[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
See there "American Philosopher" non other than Sam's favorite Ref. Site too. Wiki.

They heard songs when they were chicks!! LOL... Learned. :p

So you give more emphasis to a theory put forward by an evolutionary psychologist and consider the observations of doctors and naturalists as assumptions.

That is truly interesting.

Another idiot who thinks he knows Ayn Rand.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
See there "American Philosopher" non other than Sam's favorite Ref. Site too. Wiki.

Actually my fav reference site is pubmed. Its my home page.

But it doesn't cover social sciences and liberal arts.

Doctors are not in the realm of consciousness behavior Sam, they are physical doctors, for whatever ails you. The field of "instintual behavior" false on the observations of Psychology.

Doctors are not in the realm of consciousness behavior Sam, they are physical doctors, for whatever ails you. The field of "instintual behavior" false on the observations of Psychology.

Does not make their observations less relevant; after all if your kid was sick, you'd trust the doctor's observations over the psychologists wouldn't you? And psychiatrists are also doctors.

I just noticed something about behavior!.

I've been on Sciforum apx 5.5 years, and you been here how long? Damn girl you got to get a life, you got 1200 more posts then I, and been here lot less time! LOL...

I just noticed something about behavior!.

I've been on Sciforum apx 5.5 years, and you been here how long? Damn girl you got to get a life, you got 1200 more posts then I, and been here lot less time! LOL...

I spend 10 hours a day in the lab. I'll get a life after my PhD. ;)

Another idiot who thinks he knows Ayn Rand.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
See there "American Philosopher" non other than Sam's favorite Ref. Site too. Wiki.
That page portrays the academic value of Objectivist philosophy to be as disputed an issue as I initially believed.

Frankly, I never found much worth in her philosophy. Its tenets seem to be rather arbitrary and individualistic to such a point that it is suggestive of a misanthropic bitterness that I have come to associate with many of her followers. Furthermore, whereas socialism could be accused of worship of the collective, Objectivist philosophy is like worship of the self and is no healthier than its communal sibling. From a purely philosophical standpoint, rather than attempt to understand the human experience, Objectivism seems to presuppose its nature and then attempt to justify it.

More than anything, I'd classify Objectivist philosophy as a reaction to the times which saw its birth, not something that would stand on its own merits well beyond the end of the circumstances which prompted it.

Sam,

Religion does not have a monopoly on spirituality.Relevance?

Hmm so the emotional, the psychological is all invented? The effect of trauma, of subconscious repressions is all fantasy?What have these realities to do with the fantasy of a soul? These are all physical neural manifestations.

There is duality, between the part of the mind that creates the stress we experience, the recognition of futility, pleasure, desire, greed, frustration and the part of the mind that can relieve this stress, which also requires recognition. These are just functions of the same mind. I used the term “duality” in the classic sense of a supernatural component linked with a physical body. If you have a different perspective you will need to elucidate otherwise we will not find common ground.

Why are married people less likely to fall sick or commit suicide?
Are they physically different?These are all neural manifestations. There is no justification to imply a soul concept here.

Then you must feed your spirituality, only you don't recognise it as such.Please clarify “spirituality”. I don’t know what you mean.

sam,

New born babies are born with very few neural connections, but they make them very rapidly in those early times. Most connections form due to sensory reactions with the external world. DNA specifics cause unique hard wiring in each of us in terms taste sensitity, rate of neural growth, and countless other hardware characteristics and properties. These DNA related hard-wired features will condition us throughout much of our lives. Apart from that everything must be learnt and learning means new neural connections must be formed. In the beginning a baby is esstially a clean slate. Hunger is a physical property that manifests itself in various sensory characteristcs that impinge on the newly forming brain. Basic hard-wiring causes some motor fucntions and verbal actions to be exibited, i.e. crying, and flailing of arms. The baby is otherwise helpless and totally dependent on adults to provide sustenance. And that begins the learning process as the brain now has a new path - hunger pain, crying, food arrives, hunger pain leaves, satisfaction, pleasure. Etc, etc. You can apply the same principles as more and more neural netoworks are formed and which become more complex as time passes.

This is all entirely physical with absolutely no need for a soul in any aspect.

What is a soul, Cris?

baum,

What is a soul, Cris? A fantasy created by religious people.

baum,

A fantasy created by religious people.
Is this exactly what you refer to when you use the word "soul," or is there another hypothetical soul which you use in your argumentation?

Cris:
Although these are the concepts covered in any religious spirituality, I'll define spirituality in the non-religious sense to clarify what I mean.

I'll use Yoga, since I'm familiar with it.

yoga, meaning union, is based on the belief that the body and mind are connected—one cannot attain enlightenment without the other and both must be properly trained to develop this harmony and balance.

A yogi’s life and training involve much more than practice of the exercises, or asanas, and breathing techniques westerners associate with yoga. The path they follow to enlightenment is called Ashtanga Yoga, meaning “eight limbs.” The eight branches, learned and practiced simultaneously, are:

* Yamas—moral conduct
* Niyamas—observances
* Asanas—postures
* Pranayama—breath control
* Pratyahara—withdrawal of the senses from external objects
* Dharana—concentration
* Dhyana—meditation
* Samadhi—superconscious experiences, some even define this as complete detachment of both the physical and mental from wordly experiences.

By embracing these many facets of life, striving for humble, sincere, perfection in each, yogis follow the path to enlightenment (or spiritual perfection).

baum,

Is this exactly what you refer to when you use the word "soul," or is there another hypothetical soul which you use in your argumentation? I generally refer to the common meaning of a supernatural element as a part of the duality concept. I'm also aware of countless variations, e.g. reincarnation concepts do not fit particularly well with Christian concepts of a soul, etc. However, all are baseless fantasies and I will react accordingly to any proponent who offers a specific imaginative variation.

sam,

New born babies are born with very few neural connections, but they make them very rapidly in those early times. Most connections form due to sensory reactions with the external world. DNA specifics cause unique hard wiring in each of us in terms taste sensitity, rate of neural growth, and countless other hardware characteristics and properties. These DNA related hard-wired features will condition us throughout much of our lives. Apart from that everything must be learnt and learning means new neural connections must be formed. In the beginning a baby is esstially a clean slate. Hunger is a physical property that manifests itself in various sensory characteristcs that impinge on the newly forming brain. Basic hard-wiring causes some motor fucntions and verbal actions to be exibited, i.e. crying, and flailing of arms. The baby is otherwise helpless and totally dependent on adults to provide sustenance. And that begins the learning process as the brain now has a new path - hunger pain, crying, food arrives, hunger pain leaves, satisfaction, pleasure. Etc, etc. You can apply the same principles as more and more neural netoworks are formed and which become more complex as time passes.

This is all entirely physical with absolutely no need for a soul in any aspect.


I know about the neural circuits; I've covered it in clinical nutrition.
I don't agree with the blank slate theory.

I was arguing with the presence of innate instinctual behaviours (regardless of their origin).

They are present in babies and can be (and have been) observed under controlled conditions.

I'm surprised that the presence of instincts is completely ruled out.

Instinctual behaviour has survival benefits and much of it is not learned.

Anyone who has kept pets knows that. Animals exhibit a wide variety of behaviour that are learned, but even those animals brought up in isolation have behaviours that they have not learned but which are quite common to their species.

Cris

Because now we know about the complexity of the brain the soul concept ceases to have any credibility. It is not something we need to look for it is simply a redundant concept. Duality was originally devised as a way to explain personality, emotions, feelings, thoughts, memories, etc, because our ancestors had total ignorance of the possibilities of neural networks, electricity, and the immensely complex world of micro biology. Now that we have significant insights into this new world we no longer need the fantasy ideas of souls.


On the contrary there is no molecular evidence of how the brain works - I think you would be hard pressed to present info by any one practicing in the field who could say "Here is the molecular evidence of why a squirrel has the ability to jump up and down a tree"

Here is an interesting perspective:
http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/pinker_gray.html


The whole of the Western rationalist tradition is doomed because it rests on the faith that 'through science humankind can know truth - and so be free'. But, Gray argues, 'if Darwin's theory of natural selection is true this is impossible'. Drawinian processes are driven, not by the need to ascertain the truth, but to survive and reproduce. Accordingly, 'the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.' Indeed, 'in the struggle for life, a taste for truth is a luxury', even a 'disability'. Science, Gray suggests, reveals that 'humans cannot be other than irrational'.

But science itself is a product of our poor, befuddled, irrational, Stone Age minds. If we cannot trust such minds to discover truths about the world, how can we accept the verities of science - including the theory of evolution? The logic of Gray's argument undermines our confidence in its own veracity. For if we are just another animal, then we cannot place any trust in the claim that we are just another animal. Far from science revealing humans to be beings without consciousness and agency, we are only able to do science because of our ability to transcend our evolutionary heritage, to act as subjects, rather than as objects.

sam,

That doesn’t really help. I don’t see yoga as a spiritual activity. Certainly as part of my TM-Sidhi program I use certain simple asanas, and pranyama, and the bulk is mediation. Certainly the mind and body are intricately linked and I know that meditation, a primarily mental activity, has profound effects on the body. But these are all physical phenomena. Certainly I can achieve total mental silence and detachment from the world in any situation, noisy or quite, and I do this often. But this is not spiritual, simply very practical as a way to maintain optimal mental and physical health.

So we have both used the term “spiritual” here, yet it is still not defined. I see it as a meaningless mystical expression that in the end simply translates into mental satisfaction. I.e. pleasure, but you won’t find many mystics admit they are simply having fun – that would hardly be seen as appropriately mystical. Try yogic-flying sometime – it is simply hilarious.

Sam,

Instincts - read primitive hard-wired neural nets. But as a I said, beyond that everything else must be learnt.

sam,

That doesn’t really help. I don’t see yoga as a spiritual activity. Certainly as part of my TM-Sidhi program I use certain simple asanas, and pranyama, and the bulk is mediation. Certainly the mind and body are intricately linked and I know that meditation, a primarily mental activity, has profound effects on the body. But these are all physical phenomena. Certainly I can achieve total mental silence and detachment from the world in any situation, noisy or quite, and I do this often. But this is not spiritual, simply very practical as a way to maintain optimal mental and physical health.

So we have both used the term “spiritual” here, yet it is still not defined. I see it as a meaningless mystical expression that in the end simply translates into mental satisfaction. I.e. pleasure, but you won’t find many mystics admit they are simply having fun – that would hardly be seen as appropriately mystical. Try yogic-flying sometime – it is simply hilarious.

Mental satisfaction is not the end of spirituality, you are using an incomplete system for definition. But that's ok, since I doubt you are aiming for enlightenment. :)

Sam,

Instincts - read primitive hard-wired neural nets. But as a I said, beyond that everything else must be learnt.

Again, you presume that we are objects, but we are not. We are subjective. So what determines the subjectiveness?

Light,

On the contrary there is no molecular evidence of how the brain works - I think you would be hard pressed to present info by any one practicing in the field who could say "Here is the molecular evidence of why a squirrel has the ability to jump up and down a tree"Can’t say I really care. We have an organ between our ears with some 200,000,000,000 neurons, where each is firing at around 300Hz, i.e. a vast parallel processing network that is approximately equivalent to the processing capability of some 20,000 high-end modern day computers. Now, given the direct correlation between loss of certain functions when the brain is damaged it is not difficult to see that it is the brain that accounts for thought, consciousness, memory, emotions, etc.

Given all this evidence and recognizing the awesome power of such an organ how is it that anyone can then say, but it is all due to something supernatural, that is invisible, has no evidence for its existence, and was derived in ancient times when ignorance and superstitions ruled the world.

Come on – it is simply a matter of basic credibility. The soul is fiction, it doesn’t exist.

sam,

Again, you presume that we are objects, but we are not. We are subjective. So what determines the subjectiveness? No real idea of what you mean.

baum,

I generally refer to the common meaning of a supernatural element as a part of the duality concept. I'm also aware of countless variations, e.g. reincarnation concepts do not fit particularly well with Christian concepts of a soul, etc. However, all are baseless fantasies and I will react accordingly to any proponent who offers a specific imaginative variation.
You may be interested, then, to know that there are monistic worldviews which incorporate the existence of the soul. What, beyond being "supernatural," is the nature of a soul as you see it? The reason I wonder is that I generally view the soul as the defining characteristic of the self. In other words, suppose I had your memories, your physical form, your name, and was for all intents and purposes an exact copy of you. How would you differentiate between me and you? What would disginguish us? Despite being completely identical in every way, there are nonetheless clearly two of us.

What distinguishes us is none of the things which constitutes us, because these things are all the same. Rather, we are distinguished by identity - you recognize yourself as yourself and me as not yourself, even if an independent observer could not do the same - and this identity is what I agree to call the soul. There is no separate plane of existence implied here, only the acknowledgement of a fundamental uniqueness. What do you think of that?

sam,

No real idea of what you mean.

Did you read the link I posted on the previous page?

On Gray's Straw Dogs?

http://www.amazon.com/Straw-Dogs-Thoughts-Humans-Animals/dp/1862075964

sam,

No, but just did. It didn't help much. My first priority is survival, truth usually assists with that, but I'm not fussy. I believe we are on the verge of using our intelligence to direct our own future evolution rather than allowing it to progress randomly as it has up until now. Not sure where the issue of objects and subjects enter the picture.

sam,

No, but just did. It didn't help much. My first priority is survival, truth usually assists with that, but I'm not fussy. I believe we are on the verge of using our intelligence to direct our own future evolution rather than allowing it to progress randomly as it has up until now. Not sure where the issue of objects and subjects enter the picture.

How can evolution be directed?

By definition, evolution is a random undirected process and truth is a luxury that has no association with evolution.

If you believe that evolution works, it means that we are animals (objects) at the mercy of processes that are beyond our control. Evolution itself will direct that in order to survive we must turn into vicious killing machines to compete successfully with the growing population. The ultimate aim after all is survival.

If however, you believe that we can control our destiny, then the mind is NOT under evolutionary control, since we are transcending the effects of evolution to rewrite our history (subjective) and hence ironically undermining our own survival.

edit: just to be clear, I'm talking about evolution in terms of the mind here.

Light,

Can’t say I really care. We have an organ between our ears with some 200,000,000,000 neurons, where each is firing at around 300Hz, i.e. a vast parallel processing network that is approximately equivalent to the processing capability of some 20,000 high-end modern day computers. Now, given the direct correlation between loss of certain functions when the brain is damaged it is not difficult to see that it is the brain that accounts for thought, consciousness, memory, emotions, etc.

Given all this evidence and recognizing the awesome power of such an organ how is it that anyone can then say, but it is all due to something supernatural, that is invisible, has no evidence for its existence, and was derived in ancient times when ignorance and superstitions ruled the world.

Come on – it is simply a matter of basic credibility. The soul is fiction, it doesn’t exist.

Your vision is simplistic - once again I think you would be hard pressed to find persons working in the field that make such statements

- to use an analogy you could also say that without an engine a car doesn't move (or a faulty engine it moves in a faulty fashion) however it is clearly understood that a car, whether functional or dysfunctional, has no opportunity to go anywhere without a driver

- in other words to establish the brain is self driven (ie the brain is the final and last word about us in terms of consciousness) is highly tentative since according to a molecular breakdown of substances consciousness doesn't even exist

- this is the problem of molecular evolutionists - they attribute the phenomena of consciousness to matter despite having a complete lack of theoretical foundation to define it, what to speak of explaining how it pertains to the brain

Baum,

What, beyond being "supernatural," is the nature of a soul as you see it?I simply do not use the term, it is too misleading.

The reason I wonder is that I generally view the soul as the defining characteristic of the self. I believe I simply refer to that as individuality and leave it at that.

In other words, suppose I had your memories, your physical form, your name, and was for all intents and purposes an exact copy of you. How would you differentiate between me and you? What would disginguish us? Despite being completely identical in every way, there are nonetheless clearly two of us.There would be no differentiation until after the moment of identicalness the two entities went separate ways and began to form new memories. Memory is identity.

What distinguishes us is none of the things which constitutes us, because these things are all the same. Rather, we are distinguished by identity - you recognize yourself as yourself and me as not yourself, even if an independent observer could not do the same - and this identity is what I agree to call the soul.Well OK. I simply see that as a unique set of neural patterns – that is you – I don’t have a name for it. If those patterns were perfectly duplicated so we had the same then our identities would be identical, until we deliberately introduced different memories to create uniqueness.

There is no separate plane of existence implied here, only the acknowledgement of a fundamental uniqueness. What do you think of that?Promising. And there is more to this. Since conceiving the concept of mind-uploading some 6 years ago, and then discovering I wasn’t alone, I have played endlessly with the problem of having an exact digital copy of myself. In case this is new to you. It is proposed that in the near future we will be able to very accurately scan a brain and create a perfect digital image that could then be uploaded into a processing engine that behaves exactly the same way as a human brain. None of this would be biological. Given this scenario we would become effectively immortal since we could easily make backup copies of our image and have that restored if we were to meet with some fatal disaster. But that backup copy could also be uploaded into another engine and used to create another identical copy, ad infinitum. How then do we solve the problem of identity? Who exactly is who? Issues of property ownership etc would arise.

Promising. And there is more to this. Since conceiving the concept of mind-uploading some 6 years ago, and then discovering I wasn’t alone, I have played endlessly with the problem of having an exact digital copy of myself. In case this is new to you. It is proposed that in the near future we will be able to very accurately scan a brain and create a perfect digital image that could then be uploaded into a processing engine that behaves exactly the same way as a human brain. None of this would be biological. Given this scenario we would become effectively immortal since we could easily make backup copies of our image and have that restored if we were to meet with some fatal disaster. But that backup copy could also be uploaded into another engine and used to create another identical copy, ad infinitum. How then do we solve the problem of identity? Who exactly is who? Issues of property ownership etc would arise.

Interesting. Is this like the Matrix?

Promising. And there is more to this. Since conceiving the concept of mind-uploading some 6 years ago, and then discovering I wasn’t alone, I have played endlessly with the problem of having an exact digital copy of myself. In case this is new to you. It is proposed that in the near future we will be able to very accurately scan a brain and create a perfect digital image that could then be uploaded into a processing engine that behaves exactly the same way as a human brain. None of this would be biological. Given this scenario we would become effectively immortal since we could easily make backup copies of our image and have that restored if we were to meet with some fatal disaster. But that backup copy could also be uploaded into another engine and used to create another identical copy, ad infinitum. How then do we solve the problem of identity? Who exactly is who? Issues of property ownership etc would arise.

LOL - and to think you have a problem with ID scientists being fanciful

Sam,

How can evolution be directed? Why not? It is only a series of changes that lead to something else.

By definition, evolution is a random undirected process.No it isn’t. There is no requirement that it be random or undirected. With the introduction of an intelligence into evolutionary processes many dead ends are eliminated much earlier, and more positive changes are recognized sooner and are actively encouraged. Genetic engineering will certainly follow this path. For example - Perhaps ultimately if left to itself random evolution might solve the problem of cancer in say a few million years, but with the introduction of intelligence the problem is likely to be solved within years.

and truth is a luxury that has no association with evolution.Sure it is. Knowing that an asteroid is certain to hit and destroy the earth eventually I can take steps to leave the planet before it occurs and hence secure my survival. Believing that an imaginary god (a falsehood) will magically re-direct its path, does absolutely nothing to ensure my survival. In this sense truth is something I cannot afford to ignore.

If you believe that evolution works,Not sure what you mean here. Evolution is fact.

it means that we are animals (objects) at the mercy of processes that are beyond our control.No that is false. Our intelligence and consequential knowledge has the ability to direct future changes to the way we wish, i.e. we can take control.

Evolution itself will direct that in order to survive we must turn into vicious killing machines to compete successfully with the growing population.Total nonsense.

The ultimate aim after all is survival.Intelligence and our ability to reason leads us not to kill each other but allows us to see that community and cooperation increase our chances of survival.

If however, you believe that we can control our destiny, then the mind is NOT under evolutionary control, Everything evolves. Change is inevitable. It simply does not have to be random. And I’m not saying we can control a final outcome, that isn’t what evolution is about.

since we are transcending the effects of evolution to rewrite our history (subjective) and hence ironically undermining our own survival.No, you are simply totally screwed up on the concept of evolutionary processes.

I'm assuming you can observe some difference between yourself and an ape. :p

Correct assumption and it addresses neither of the questions.



Maybe it's just depression because of a lack of spiritual support system.


If by 'spiritual' we're talking appreciation then it might be. If we're talking metaphysical mumbo jumbo then the statement is meaningless.


Hopefully one of these you will realise that your plane of consciousness includes a subconscious and an unconscious; something which is not as advanced in apes. ;)

"Plane of consciousness"? Sounds D&D-ish.

sam, light,

Try this thread for more on mind uploading. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=2585

And a more serious forum looking at computer-brain interfacing - http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=SF&f=47

The concept is new to you guys huh? Are you not aware of Robosapien concepts? I.e. one of the next probable stages of human evolution.

sam,

Interesting. Is this like the Matrix?There are two primary routes expected.

1) The uploaded mind is placed into a mobile unit, android style and communities of uploads can live somewhat like regular humans do now. Probably inter mixing with AI’s that would likely be indistinguishable – shared technologies.

2) The uploaded mind joins a virtual community and exists only in partitions of a large computer network. Interactions would occur but in entirely computer based scenarios (virtual reality) – certainly matrix–style.

light,

LOL - and to think you have a problem with ID scientists being fanciful The problem with theists is that they are so narrow and closed minded that they do not explore the many varied other potential posibilities that we might discover and develop. All the time they are stuck with - God did it - and vainly hope for paradise after death then they will never grow. The god concept is really very naive and primitive.

sam, light,

Try this thread for more on mind uploading. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=2585

And a more serious forum looking at computer-brain interfacing - http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=SF&f=47

The concept is new to you guys huh? Are you not aware of Robosapien concepts? I.e. one of the next probable stages of human evolution.
I was into the Robosapien view of the future from eighth grade through high school, but I eventually lost my taste for it. I always loved to wonder about the implications of conscious machines and people living without organic bodies, but as I learned more about history, it seemed less and less likely that the global situation would support the adoption of that kind of technology should it prove feasible. I see a dark age coming over the next centuries, the result of climate change and cultural strife; and as someone pursuing a scientific career, I hope it won't come so quickly as to put me out of a job! But I digress.

sam, light,

Try this thread for more on mind uploading. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=2585

And a more serious forum looking at computer-brain interfacing - http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=SF&f=47

The concept is new to you guys huh? Are you not aware of Robosapien concepts? I.e. one of the next probable stages of human evolution.

I went through part of the thread.

This seems more about immortality than evolution. Do you fear death?

The way I see it, one would essentially live in an artificial world with a real mind- forever. Is that right?


sam,

There are two primary routes expected.

1) The uploaded mind is placed into a mobile unit, android style and communities of uploads can live somewhat like regular humans do now. Probably inter mixing with AI’s that would likely be indistinguishable – shared technologies.

2) The uploaded mind joins a virtual community and exists only in partitions of a large computer network. Interactions would occur but in entirely computer based scenarios (virtual reality) – certainly matrix–style.

Is virtual reality satisfying when you know it's virtual?

light,

The problem with theists is that they are so narrow and closed minded that they do not explore the many varied other potential posibilities that we might discover and develop. All the time they are stuck with - God did it - and vainly hope for paradise after death then they will never grow. The god concept is really very naive and primitive.

It seems to me that even atheists have illusions of immortality. Interesting that you have a desire to exist forever in a virtual world with a false reality. How do you see people evolving further in such a case? Through memes?

I see a dark age coming over the next centuries, the result of climate change and cultural strife; and as someone pursuing a scientific career, I hope it won't come so quickly as to put me out of a job! But I digress.

Yes I see that too. I think we underestimate the ability of man to use power for destruction and personal gain.

Here is an interesting article on the future of human evolution
http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html

light,

The problem with theists is that they are so narrow and closed minded that they do not explore the many varied other potential posibilities that we might discover and develop. All the time they are stuck with - God did it - and vainly hope for paradise after death then they will never grow. The god concept is really very naive and primitive.
Come now, certainly not all theists are so narrow-minded. A lot of people in general have poorly developed world views, but I am not so sure of how theism bears on this. I have met many superstitious people who blindly appeal to a religious authority for their beliefs, but I also have encountered a fair share of thoughtless individuals who have simply jumped on the atheist bandwagon because it is fashionable to dislike religion, and have never earnestly desired to understand their own philosophy. And the concept of a God has at least caused me to investigate my reality much more thoroughly than if I had never known of it. It has made me more of a critical thinker, and it has caused me to question more, than perhaps anything else. I have tottered between atheism and theism for years as the debate has played within me, and my desire to reconcile the apparently contradictory teachings of religion and science has caused me to gain a deeper understanding of both.

Maybe there is something to the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." As I have observed the people in my life, I have found that many of them will simply do either what they want or what you convince them that they want, using whatever justification seems convenient. An invisible man who controls everything is a very convenient justification. But those who desire a deeper satisfaction, those willing to question, will not be deterred by such obvious oversimplifications. Waiting beneath the naive face of mythology is the philosophical work of deep thinkers and the story of the human condition. It has been the same story the world over, whether under Jehovah, Ahura Mazda, or the Greek pantheon. But if that story were to vanish from our memories - if God died forever and never again did the invisible man haunt us from atop the castles of our leaders and oppressors - ninety-five percent of the people in the world would still need to be told what to do and how to behave.

The difference would be that five percent of the people in the world could no longer enrich their lives with much of the hidden wisdom of the past. The thoughtless would remain thoughtless; they would be otherwise compelled to blindly obey, as the communist leaders of the U.S.S.R. and its allies managed without the backing of God during the Cold War. Some other "religion" would inspire the next great atrocity. Our historians would record the great event, and our thinkers would attempt to find meaning among the madness. And so would be planted the seeds of the mythology of the future, the rebuilding from scratch of our civilization's collective unconscious. And that, regardless of what you believe about God, would be a tragedy.

Sam,

Why not? It is only a series of changes that lead to something else.


Yes, but natural selection selects for characteristics that ensure survival of the species, not the individual.

No it isn’t. There is no requirement that it be random or undirected. With the introduction of an intelligence into evolutionary processes many dead ends are eliminated much earlier, and more positive changes are recognized sooner and are actively encouraged. Genetic engineering will certainly follow this path. For example - Perhaps ultimately if left to itself random evolution might solve the problem of cancer in say a few million years, but with the introduction of intelligence the problem is likely to be solved within years.

I understand what you are saying but won't selecting exclusively for fitness characteristics lead to eugenics?

Sure it is. Knowing that an asteroid is certain to hit and destroy the earth eventually I can take steps to leave the planet before it occurs and hence secure my survival. Believing that an imaginary god (a falsehood) will magically re-direct its path, does absolutely nothing to ensure my survival. In this sense truth is something I cannot afford to ignore.

What if you existed in a virtual reality at the time? Would you still know? And how would you move out? (if you were androids, it would be easier, I guess. btw, how would these uploaded minds be powered?)

Not sure what you mean here. Evolution is fact.

No that is false. Our intelligence and consequential knowledge has the ability to direct future changes to the way we wish, i.e. we can take control.


Yes but again, that is eugenics.

Total nonsense.

OK :)

Intelligence and our ability to reason leads us not to kill each other but allows us to see that community and cooperation increase our chances of survival.


Utilitarianism would actually show the desirability of conserving limited resources.

Everything evolves. Change is inevitable. It simply does not have to be random. And I’m not saying we can control a final outcome, that isn’t what evolution is about.


Ok

No, you are simply totally screwed up on the concept of evolutionary processes.

I'm learning.

By the way, what about animals? In an artificial society, do animals have a role?

Cris

The problem with theists is that they are so narrow and closed minded that they do not explore the many varied other potential posibilities that we might discover and develop.
Many people, even scientists, say the same thing about atheism


All the time they are stuck with - God did it - and vainly hope for paradise after death then they will never grow.
and hoping to down load your brain on a computer to live for ever is not a vain hope?


The god concept is really very naive and primitive.
On the contrary, even primitive jungle religion is more advanced than your limited concepts of growth

sam, light,

Try this thread for more on mind uploading. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=2585

And a more serious forum looking at computer-brain interfacing - http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=SF&f=47

The concept is new to you guys huh? Are you not aware of Robosapien concepts? I.e. one of the next probable stages of human evolution.
New concept? Hardly

Even humans can perform algorithms.
:p

The reduction of consciousness to mechanistic functions is bereft of even a vocabulary, what to speak of a methodology.

Actually it is interesting that you reject the "fancifulnes" of theism but ar e forced to take shelter of some other doctrine that is equally as fanciful

Duality was originally devised as a way to explain personality, emotions, feelings, thoughts, memories, etc, because our ancestors had total ignorance of the possibilities of neural networks, electricity, and the immensely complex world of micro biology.

Neural networks, electricity and micro biology does not explain personality, emotions, feelings, thoughts, memories, etc.

All you see are the effects of these things, not the causes.

BS. I was once a theist as were many atheists.

People can easily become brainwashed again. Just because you moved to the other side doesn't mean you've found the truth. You became an atheist because you saw that your beliefs were naive, but if you rediscover THE REAL God and inner spiritual realms, you might turn into a theist again. I was once an atheist like you.

Basic hard-wiring causes some motor fucntions and verbal actions to be exibited, i.e. crying, and flailing of arms.

tears are the blood of the soul. because the soul is invisible, the blood is invisible. the blood comes from the eyes, because like everyone knows-- if we look someone in the eyes, we see their soul.

that's why animals don't cry the same way as humans, because their souls are not as developed.

This is all entirely physical with absolutely no need for a soul in any aspect.

just because there is no need (or because you don't understand why there is a need) for a soul, doesn't mean there isn't one!!

So we have both used the term “spiritual” here, yet it is still not defined.

you can say that the world is only spiritual (inside the mind) or only material (outside the mind).
consciousness (me and the outer world) is a duality.

Who exactly is who?

what is this who you're talking about? there is only one existence, one life, one self, in infinite bodies. the fruits fall from the tree on autumn, but the life (spirit, breath) does not dissapear, because when the tree breathes outwards, the fruits, bodies, appear again. i, the life, is in all of the fruits, but i come from the tree, which comes from the earth, and so on, ad infinitum (nothingness, God). i am omnipresent.

All the time they are stuck with - God did it - and vainly hope for paradise after death then they will never grow. The god concept is really very naive and primitive.

It's your concept of God which is naive. If I saw God as you did, I couldn't believe in it either!

The concept of the soul is redundant. I'd like to live forever just like the next guy, but the idea that consciousness would at all resemble even superficially the minds of humans is a terrifying prospect. We are animals, we have specific psychological traits that would be detrimental to an immortal. The basic drives (eat, sleep, procreate, survive) would have no place in an afterlife. Those are psychic garments that have specific, quantifiable evolutionary use. Outside of the context of mortality they become extrenous attributes that can only hinder. How are we to retain psychological health if nothing we do perfoms any necessary function? It's life's transience that gives us meaning, that defines our charactor. Our emotions are designed to help us to avoid danger, form familial and communal bonds, persue happiness and to empathize and form attatchments. This just shows how superficial the 'soul' really is. It's not needed explain mortal life, and there is no reason to think that any part of the us that is here and now should go on surviving past death.

Consider the way the mind works. 10,000 mostly useless thoughts a day running through our heads, the ability to conceptualize only in very limited fashion , emotional neurosis and attatchment, the inability to expand your mind beyond the boundaries set out by the grey matter in our skulls. It's ridiculous to think that any part of us would go on past death. For what purpose? I could not imagine the horror of being trapped in my limited conscious personality forever. Do we at least get to sleep in the afterlife?

and there is no reason to think that any part of the us that is here and now should go on surviving past death.

Why are you in that specific body at this specific time? What is the mechanism that determines which physical body your consciousness is attached to? If there are several consciousnesses, what prevented you from being born as me? Or someone else of the billions of people on this planet?

I could not imagine the horror of being trapped in my limited conscious personality forever.

We're not trapped in one personality. You create your own personality with your thoughts. When the body has died, we (consciousness) are born into a new body, with a new brain and everything. Nothing about this life will be remembered, just like you don't remember the life before this.

But I think it's very likely that we will be conscious forever. That doesn't sound comforting to me, but at least we don't remember our past lives, so we can always hope that there is an eternal rest/death/nirvana.

tears are the blood of the soul. because the soul is invisible, the blood is invisible. the blood comes from the eyes, because like everyone knows-- if we look someone in the eyes, we see their soul.

that's why animals don't cry the same way as humans, because their souls are not as developed.


This guy is pure comedy. You realize you sound like a child right?

People often say: show me proof and then I'll believe it.
But the thing is: you get the proof when you believe it.
It works the other way around.
If you don't believe it, you're not gonna believe me; you're not gonna believe any proof that I would be able to show you.
So there's really no point.

I am consciousness, everyone is the same consciousness... my body is just one among the its infinite bodies... my body (any of them) is like a character in a videogame which I control. It's not me, the real me is the one consciousness, and the entire world are it's manifestations.

This guy is pure comedy. You realize you sound like a child right?

sure... but i think children often say intelligent things...

Consciousness is actually generated by a 4000-year-old blind druid called, um, Neshyar, living high in the mountains of Nepal, using a machine adapted from an old-fashioned bellows.

I'll show you the proof of this when you truly believe it.

sure... but i think children often say intelligent things...

If you had said something intelligent I wouldn't have told you that you sound like a child.

The idea of a soul, or that there is an afterlife, is an ancient, if not immortal thought in and of itself, throughout the history of mankind. As archaeologists and other scientists peruse our past through artifacts and writings and buildings, religion and the afterlife have been recurring themes in almost every, if not every, culture. Ideas that there were gods, goddesses, and deity's that watched over us, showed pleasure or displeasure of our actions, sending harvests and plagues at a whim... and that one day, after our bodies perished, our soul would either be sent back to another earthly body, or be face-to-face with the god(s) to either be rewarded or punished.

So... where does that leave us? Why, again, do we derive a part of ourselves to be immortal when all our senses tell us all things pass away?

One of the most fundamental immaterial things about us, as people, is the ability to think. The ability to construct complex "thoughts" are quite immeasurable (despite what proponents of standardized testing would have you believe). They cannot be weighed, touched, smelled, heard, or seen. We can try to gauge how well our mind can process certain types of thought, but thought itself? Completely immaterial.

So the marriage of our physical selves with our nonphysical abilities and proof's of existence is certainly something that has been around for quite some time. But, while we can "think," and certainly our physical world shows proof of our abilities to do so, what cannot be shown, or has yet to be proven, is the "proof" or "ability" to live on past our physical bodies...

Most people, when they think of "I," or themselves, identify themselves through personality traits (i.e., I am caring, I am funny, I am shy...). People are their personalities. And your personality is your brain. But most people think of their brain as part of the mortal, or material, world. Not as their soul. And the soul is always intrinsically defined as that part of you, or you yourself, which will continue to live on after death, which in default includes your shyness, your funny bone, your dry wit. But if your brain is actually in control of these parts of ourselves which we deem as immortal, what is left for the soul to actually do or be?

The idea of afterlife only exists because, being as we cannot comprehend not existing, we therefore imagine a life for afterward, because we cannot fathom not thinking, not feeling, not existing. We cannot fathom not existing, and therefore, we must continue to exist even when all we know and all we see disappears or goes away...

Hence, the idea of a soul. Because, we know our bodies fail us. (Mine is failing me right now with a mid-summer cold!!) So we needed something separate from that, something that didn't depend on our bodies to carry us over to the great afterlife, the eternal bliss we imagine must be...

Come now, certainly not all theists are so narrow-minded. A lot of people in general have poorly developed world views, but I am not so sure of how theism bears on this. I have met many superstitious people who blindly appeal to a religious authority for their beliefs, but I also have encountered a fair share of thoughtless individuals who have simply jumped on the atheist bandwagon because it is fashionable to dislike religion, and have never earnestly desired to understand their own philosophy. And the concept of a God has at least caused me to investigate my reality much more thoroughly than if I had never known of it. It has made me more of a critical thinker, and it has caused me to question more, than perhaps anything else. I have tottered between atheism and theism for years as the debate has played within me, and my desire to reconcile the apparently contradictory teachings of religion and science has caused me to gain a deeper understanding of both.

Maybe there is something to the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." As I have observed the people in my life, I have found that many of them will simply do either what they want or what you convince them that they want, using whatever justification seems convenient. An invisible man who controls everything is a very convenient justification. But those who desire a deeper satisfaction, those willing to question, will not be deterred by such obvious oversimplifications. Waiting beneath the naive face of mythology is the philosophical work of deep thinkers and the story of the human condition. It has been the same story the world over, whether under Jehovah, Ahura Mazda, or the Greek pantheon. But if that story were to vanish from our memories - if God died forever and never again did the invisible man haunt us from atop the castles of our leaders and oppressors - ninety-five percent of the people in the world would still need to be told what to do and how to behave.

The difference would be that five percent of the people in the world could no longer enrich their lives with much of the hidden wisdom of the past. The thoughtless would remain thoughtless; they would be otherwise compelled to blindly obey, as the communist leaders of the U.S.S.R. and its allies managed without the backing of God during the Cold War. Some other "religion" would inspire the next great atrocity. Our historians would record the great event, and our thinkers would attempt to find meaning among the madness. And so would be planted the seeds of the mythology of the future, the rebuilding from scratch of our civilization's collective unconscious. And that, regardless of what you believe about God, would be a tragedy.

I can't believe that no one responded to this post.

I'll show you the proof of this when you truly believe it.

only IF IT IS TRUE, i will get the proof-- not from you... but i will discover it myself, once i start believing that.

belief does not work without proof and proof does not work without belief!!

So... where does that leave us? Why, again, do we derive a part of ourselves to be immortal when all our senses tell us all things pass away?

because we've only seen outside things pass away. we haven't seen what death is when experienced from the inside.

The idea of afterlife only exists because, being as we cannot comprehend not existing, we therefore imagine a life for afterward, because we cannot fathom not thinking, not feeling, not existing.

everything that we can imagine is possible, otherwise we wouldn't be able to imagine them. but we can't imagine non-existence, because it is impossible. it does not exist!

I can't believe that no one responded to this post.

why is it strange? it has only been there for a couple of hours!!

The idea of a soul, or that there is an afterlife, is an ancient, if not immortal thought in and of itself, throughout the history of mankind. As archaeologists and other scientists peruse our past through artifacts and writings and buildings, religion and the afterlife have been recurring themes in almost every, if not every, culture. Ideas that there were gods, goddesses, and deity's that watched over us, showed pleasure or displeasure of our actions, sending harvests and plagues at a whim... and that one day, after our bodies perished, our soul would either be sent back to another earthly body, or be face-to-face with the god(s) to either be rewarded or punished.

So... where does that leave us? Why, again, do we derive a part of ourselves to be immortal when all our senses tell us all things pass away?

One of the most fundamental immaterial things about us, as people, is the ability to think. The ability to construct complex "thoughts" are quite immeasurable (despite what proponents of standardized testing would have you believe). They cannot be weighed, touched, smelled, heard, or seen. We can try to gauge how well our mind can process certain types of thought, but thought itself? Completely immaterial.

So the marriage of our physical selves with our nonphysical abilities and proof's of existence is certainly something that has been around for quite some time. But, while we can "think," and certainly our physical world shows proof of our abilities to do so, what cannot be shown, or has yet to be proven, is the "proof" or "ability" to live on past our physical bodies...

Most people, when they think of "I," or themselves, identify themselves through personality traits (i.e., I am caring, I am funny, I am shy...). People are their personalities. And your personality is your brain. But most people think of their brain as part of the mortal, or material, world. Not as their soul. And the soul is always intrinsically defined as that part of you, or you yourself, which will continue to live on after death, which in default includes your shyness, your funny bone, your dry wit. But if your brain is actually in control of these parts of ourselves which we deem as immortal, what is left for the soul to actually do or be?

The idea of afterlife only exists because, being as we cannot comprehend not existing, we therefore imagine a life for afterward, because we cannot fathom not thinking, not feeling, not existing. We cannot fathom not existing, and therefore, we must continue to exist even when all we know and all we see disappears or goes away...

Hence, the idea of a soul. Because, we know our bodies fail us. (Mine is failing me right now with a mid-summer cold!!) So we needed something separate from that, something that didn't depend on our bodies to carry us over to the great afterlife, the eternal bliss we imagine must be...

What you failed to establish is why thhis desire is falsely met

For instance there is the argument that we have no experience of anything that vast numbers of the population desire that does not actually exist - (like we desire water, perhaps more desperately in the desert, and water exists - similarly we desire love, friendship, food etc etc and all these things are seen to exist)

basically it is the teleological argument that this universe and our minds are designed in very specific ways to interact, and if there is an observable phenomena that is seen to manifest in our desires in vast numbers of the population in all periods of time, then the fundamental principle of that desire exists.

In other words the next life is a very real thing - whether you take your funny bone or dry wit with you is another thing

everything that we can imagine is possible, otherwise we wouldn't be able to imagine them. but we can't imagine non-existence, because it is impossible. it does not exist!

I can't imagine something billions of miles away but the stars still exist. I can't imagine something a tenth of a millionth of a millimetre across but atoms still exist. Wtf are you talking about?

I can't imagine something billions of miles away but the stars still exist. I can't imagine something a tenth of a millionth of a millimetre across but atoms still exist. Wtf are you talking about?

I can imagine that the universe is infinitely large, but I can't imagine there being a boundary where space itself suddenly stops existing. So, I think the universe is infinite. It's also easy for me to imagine that the universe is made of infinitely small "particles" (nothing)

I can even imagine pink flying elephants...

I can't imagine something billions of miles away but the stars still exist. I can't imagine something a tenth of a millionth of a millimetre across but atoms still exist.

Of course you can .....you just wrote it out for all of us to read it!

Baron Max

There are a lot of corruptions of language that opens this up in ways I don't intend ....

Children have more soul than adults
This music has soul
He is a happy soul
etc etc

While obviously the word "soul" is a theistic reference to that which bears reference to our identity it also has other definitions that take it outside of such colloquialisms (such as the soul bears witness or receives judgement and is held accountable etc etc)

In other words it is greatly influential, if not integral to our existence, seeming to be subject to some law of result beyond the laws of result that pertain to the body. If the soul exists then obviously it is a uniform substance, and its being is not constituted as that of a christian soul or a jewish soul etc etc (that said - feel free to offer scriptural evidence if you think otherwise)

Generally speaking it becomes impractical to refer to the soul (or even to deny the soul, as in the case of Buddhism) without reference to scriptural authority, since we could very well slip in to identifying the mind with the soul (which is generally how the word "soul" finds its usage in common english).

So the topic of discussion here is the offering of interpretations of scriptural evidence that can establish many of the points raised in the poll or other issues such as the plurality/oneness/duality of the soul.
theres no souls,if there were dont you think we all could comunicate with any/all the dead,since these are allegedly souls/spirits ;)

theres no souls,if there were dont you think we all could comunicate with any/all the dead,since these are allegedly souls/spirits ;)
we do. Its just that its not communication in any form that you are used to and they don't have minds like they did when they were alive. So the communicating is very different.

Of course you can .....you just wrote it out for all of us to read it!

Baron Max

Wow you almost make c7ityi_ look intelligent.

There is a soul. In the future, maybe a few hundred or thousand years it will probably be discovered as a missing link that explains the mysteries of consciousness at last.

With our current science how can anyone design an experiment to verify that the soul does/doesn't exist?

What is the wilder claim? That consciousness and self-awareness in it varying degrees is a simple byproduct of developing brains? Or that some never detected, c