09-12-05, 01:21 PM #281Originally Posted by Cris
Only visible things are subject to physical change, whereas invisible things are not under the power of change, at least not in a way familiar to us. Also, you are asking for something to be discovered whose nature is not discoverable, since not only is it a mystery but it does not fall under the domain of secular science but of divine science (theology).
Nevertheless, no one is disputing your right to doubt the existance of something that has never been officially "discovered", though some would say that the discovery you are seeking is The REVEALED WORD OF GOD. Men for good reason doubted God's power and influence in their lives, before the incarnation, but after Jesus showed forth his divine life on earth, the spiritual laws of reality were "discovered" by men through REVELATION.
Last edited by Lawdog; 09-12-05 at 01:31 PM.
09-12-05, 01:26 PM #282Originally Posted by ProCop
That you have to reference a 50 year old study that wasn't designed to test the hypothesis proposed and that you don't have anything current strongly suggests that there is little or nothing to the hypothesis. The best 'evidence' that Sheldrake has been about to come up with in the last 15 years is anecdotal (regarding bird skills and psychic pets). Those few tests he has performed (with learning Morse code, qwerty keyboard, and performing crosswords) have been lambasted as inherently problematic and biased.
In your argument: <i>if there was an anomaly in that needed explaining it surely would be impossible to ignore at this point</I>... you misunderstand the problem: science doesn't have any equipment to study immaterial phenomenon whatsoever.
The experiment wasn't further studied because of science's incapacity to study it further - to ignore it was/is the only position the science could take concerning these findings.
09-12-05, 01:35 PM #283
No. I'm not going to refer to scripture, too much room there for getting lost in semantic and interpretative games.
One will quickly note that definition of the soul is rather difficult, apparently even for people who know they have one. But there are certainly common themes here that easily support the basis for Boris's working definition:
09-12-05, 01:52 PM #284Originally Posted by Lawdog
09-12-05, 02:02 PM #285Originally Posted by wesmorris
Where does the interaction between length and width take place? It's the same type of relationship as far as I see it, except as I noted - this relationship could be simulated with holography. They are related because they are both part of the whole.
and from my perspective, this "incompleteness" goes to my own point, in that any conceptual element isn't necessarily determinant or complete. Again, this was regarding "information" - which should be "complete" and "determinant" in and of itself. So again, concepts don't fit any "information" theory I've encountered, yet they are abundant in mind - so it's not necessarily just "information" as you asserted before.
I understand that, which is why I said something like "as we know it" regarding physicality. I'd think also, one would have to accept that for instance in the context of string theory - there are 'physical dimensions' that humans cannot 'physically touch' as we know it. If the hypothesis is correct for instance, you still cannot "touch" imaginary time with your finger for instance.
09-12-05, 02:03 PM #286
09-12-05, 02:05 PM #287
Then you cannot give a serious argument regarding the soul.
09-12-05, 02:05 PM #288
09-12-05, 02:27 PM #289Originally Posted by Hapsburg
09-12-05, 02:38 PM #290Originally Posted by Raithere
The interaction takes place in the larger geometry. It is only there that the components meet. Without the coordinate system of a larger geometry you don't have a relationship, you merely have two lines.
I agree that any conceptual element isn't necessarily determinant or complete. It only has meaning within the incorporating system. Again, to me this demonstrates that it is not independent but a part of the physical system incorporating it.
This doesn't mean that its non-physical. Its still part of the ST we're in. Or, more accurately, we exist in S,T, iT.
09-12-05, 02:42 PM #291Originally Posted by raithere
The brain and the body are created by physical processes that are very well known.
Where, when, and how does the soul intercede to affect the development of a brain and a body from the gametes of the parents?
09-12-05, 03:07 PM #292Originally Posted by LawdogOriginally Posted by LawdogOriginally Posted by LawdogOriginally Posted by Lawdog
http://img2.uploadimages.net/202784images.jpgOriginally Posted by Lawdog
09-12-05, 03:31 PM #293Originally Posted by Q
Fair enough, but one must have some iota of information from reality in order to conceive of a soul,
what exactly would that be?
How can 0% perception of reality lead one to believe in a soul?
forgive me if you think i am deflecting the matter.
Sure. But if you use an analogy, try one that fits instead, please?
Sorry, misunderstanding on both parts. What I meant, and what boris' post alludes, is not the result of the projection, the mind and body, but the actually connectivity between the soul and the mind and body, the projection itself.
If I may use an analogy, a projector throws up images on to a screen. The 'connectivity,' so to speak, would be the light travelling between the projector and the screen, while the end result is the image created by the light.
In that analogy, you describe the image as the mind and body. I am asking about the light itself and how it produced the image. Is that clearer?
the light is something which is not the on the screen, so to understand the light we have to stop living in the 2dimensional flatness of the screen. to undertand the light you need to start to be the light. when you start to be the light, you are more of you real self because you never where that 2 dimensional flatness, that was an illusion created by the effect of the light upon the screen. this shining on to the screen was a neccessary part of the film. because as the light you did not undersatand the 2 dimensional flatness and so you cold not be your real self then either.
i shoud say this is me, i dont wish to make this your journey. this is my journey i just took the you form your analogy. i dont know how it is for you, but this is how i see me. i do appreciate that you dont see your self this way.
You've hit upon that which precludes the soul, the fact that we are not immortal, that we have no soul, and that the way we live on is in the minds and hearts of those who knew us, family and friends.
09-12-05, 03:36 PM #294Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
I've provided more than enough evidence to show that Boris's working definition of a soul does indeed conform to a broad ranging theistic interpretation of the concept. If you have further problems with the definition take it up here as I have already requested or contact those who promote these interpretations. Till then I don't think we have much to say to each other regarding the subject.
09-12-05, 03:50 PM #295Originally Posted by wesmorris
Agreed. I simply suspect a larger geometry as I've said. IMO, mind can't be accounted for without it.
But I never said it was "independant". I said it's consequential, related, dependent upon.. but not the same as, as we usually consider the notion.
Again, that's why I specified "as is generally thought of" or whatever. As we usually consider "space-time" what I'm eluding to is non-physical.
09-12-05, 03:54 PM #296Originally Posted by Lawdog
09-12-05, 04:03 PM #297
i dont have the answer to that, you do!
Yes, I think I do. IMSC, the word 'soul' came from the Greek (or Latin) term, to breath(e) and has evolved over time to form the concept of a soul. Of course, no one knew anything about the brain or the mind back then and could not understand its workings on a physical level. The rest is history.
you can only be assuming this is true as you have never experienced the percentage of my perception of reailty
I would agree with you if there were in fact more than one realities. I would wonder how one could perceive reality for anything different than what it is?
but i can see myself whistling melodies in eternity.
So do I, along with other enjoyable activities like playing golf with Tiger Woods or hockey with Wayne Gretzky. (Yes, I know they're still alive.)
However, I view those activities in eternity merely as wishful thinking.
09-12-05, 04:37 PM #298
09-12-05, 05:25 PM #299Originally Posted by Raithere
Order and chaos are indeed categories, but the relationships exist independent of the perception of those relationships.
Otherwise the world would fall into chaos when it was not being observed. Or did Neptune merely appear out of chaos after we built a telescope capable of detecting it?
What is it that cannot be accounted for?
Then you've lost me. You seem to be asserting that the abstract is some sort of projection of a physical phenomenon but what is it that is being projected?
I guess I need some clarification then. When you assert that components of the mind, abstract ideas, and the like are non-physical what do you mean?
Do you simply mean undectedable by current methods but potentially observable phenomena or do you mean that they're intrinsically undetectable?
Oh, and to correct myself... I'm not sure it can be directly observed or just inferred from observation.. so...
Last edited by wesmorris; 09-12-05 at 05:54 PM.
09-12-05, 05:44 PM #300wes:
To me, it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that computers cannot be conscious. Have you seen the relevant portain of "the emperor's new mind" by Mr. Penrose?
To state that computers cannot be conscious is to imply some mystical aspect to the human brain that can never be captured by some other kind of "hardware". Why could not a neural network "computer" of sufficient complexity and self interaction (reproducing the function of neurons in the human brain) become self aware and conscious?
Is there any evidence (beyond our own self aggrandizement of just how amazing we think we are) for the existence of a mystical property of the brain called "mind"?