Souls?

[the preacher]

Boris has argued it doesn't exist, so he must know what it is that doesn't exist.

duh! wtf!( a quote for the record books)

not subject to laws of matter!!

the paradox arises from the attempt to confine a non-material subject to physical laws. the subject is not material and therefore not beholden to physiocal laws.

by its definition the soul is capable of defying any must's/ should's /would's or will's that are given from our understanding of the physical realm.

scientific instuments are restricted to the physical laws and to observing physical properties.

it is not restricted to the physical realm and therfore it defies such constraints, by definition.

proper instruments are detecting physical changes but what is used to detect the non physical changes in the non-material soul? we doint have non-material detection devices.

i should have included ought in my list of not applicable to a subject not confined to matter. this expectation is derives the physical laws of matter, no such laws apply to the non-material.

this is all equivalent to 'matter is physical the soul is not.

by not being restricted to the laws from which these properties derive.

so in conclusion, the soul is immaterial and cannot react with the material world in any way, then if it exists in this hallucinogenic realm, how does it react with humanity, Ah got it, in your hallucinations, in dreams, in imaginings, so lets just say people have to, have faith it exists.

[Jan Ardena]

Raithere,

But he cannot define what it is that interacts, or how it interacts, so his arguments are null and void.


Incorrect. We know what a soul is supposed to interact with therefore we can provide the conditions of how a soul (whatever it happens to be) may interact with it.

Did you even read my point?
He must give a definition of what it is that reacts, and how it reacts. Just asigning the name "soul" means nothing.

Similarly, since we know certain fundamentals about how a human body works we can define certain properties necessary for anything that is conjectured to interact with it.

So?

Unless you’re going to assert that a soul does not affect the body then there is really no way around this Jan, if the soul can affect the body then we can measure that effect whether we know anything else about the soul or not.

You are (Boris) presuming what the soul is and its affects on the body without giving an explanation of what it is you're talking about.

Boris did give a definition of the soul; something that interacts with the human brain.

Where did he get this information?
Or what made him come to that conclusion?

The soul is considered by theists to be the animating force of life and/or the seat of consciousness of a human being.

Okay.

It’s source is either God, the eternal waters, or whatever “First Cause” is depicted by the believer as the source of existence.

Basically you sound as though you're not really interested in the subject matter, but we shall see. Can you give scriptoral account of what the soul is, what the source is, and how it interacts with the material world?

As far as I know, no one has been able to come up with a workable hypothesis as to how a soul could interact with a human body but there are many interesting conjectures.

What do you regard as "a soul?"
What are these conjectures?

Now, if you have an alternative definition why don’t you stop avoiding my questions and tell me what you think a soul is and how it relates to a human organism because this is getting really annoying.

I didn't write the stupid post that kick started this thread, Boris did. If you want answers then ask him.
I don't really give a shit about your questions unless you can show some kind of courtesy regarding the subject matter.
Most explicit atheists, in my experience, are just spoilt little brats in a constant state of anxiety, maybe because they know that their belief system is shite. So if you're annoyed, and it is a problem, go see a counciler.

Jan Ardena.

[Sarkus]

not subject to laws of matter!!
the paradox arises from the attempt to confine a non-material subject to physical laws. the subject is not material and therefore not beholden to physical laws.

If it is not beholden to the physical laws of this Universe then it, by definition, either does not exist or CAN NOT INTERACT WITH THE PHYSICAL.
Anything that interacts with the physical HAS TO OBEY THE LAWS OF MATTER while it is interacting.

by its definition the soul is capable of defying any must's/ should's /would's or will's that are given from our understanding of the physical realm.

But the matter that you claim it interacts with (i.e. the person etc) IS bound by the laws of matter. It can only react and exist according to the laws of physics.
You can not have an IMMATERIAL item interacting with a MATERIAL item unless the IMMATERIAL item is obeying the same laws as the MATERIAL.

it is not restricted to the physical realm and therfore it defies such constraints, by definition.

But the matter that it supposedly interacts with IS restricted to the physical realm and can not defy such contraints.

Read Boris' post again.

no! no must's. it is by definition not subject to any must, should, will or would these are expectations from the material realm.

The "soul" might exist, it might not. If it "exists" then it exists in an immaterial realm that CAN NOT interact with the material realm.
To do so would break/counter/contravene the laws of this Universe.

...no such laws apply to the non-material.

One more time - if the soul is immaterial it CAN NOT INTERACT WITH THE MATERIAL.
It is not the "soul" that is the limiting factor in the desire for interaction, but it is the MATTER that limits it.

If the soul interacts with matter, in any way, then this interaction MUST be observable within the matter.
You can not interact with matter and not leave observable evidence.

If you doubt it, please try and think of any way in which it is not true.

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

If it is not beholden to the physical laws of this Universe then it, by definition, either does not exist or CAN NOT INTERACT WITH THE PHYSICAL.

Or it is superior to matter.

Anything that interacts with the physical HAS TO OBEY THE LAWS OF MATTER while it is interacting.

You are assuming that the laws of matter is the be all end all. Have you considered that it might not be.

But the matter that you claim it interacts with (i.e. the person etc) IS bound by the laws of matter. It can only react and exist according to the laws of physics.

In what way does music act according to the laws of nature?
Is music included in the laws of nature?

You can not have an IMMATERIAL item interacting with a MATERIAL item unless the IMMATERIAL item is obeying the same laws as the MATERIAL.

Can you give some evidence of this?

Read Boris' post again.

What would be the point, his point is very simplistic and doesn't need much attention to grasp.

The "soul" might exist, it might not. If it "exists" then it exists in an immaterial realm that CAN NOT interact with the material realm.

Apart from "immaterial" how else would you define the soul?

To do so would break/counter/contravene the laws of this Universe.

What if the laws of the universe were dependant on the soul?

If the soul interacts with matter, in any way, then this interaction MUST be observable within the matter.

What would you look for?

You can not interact with matter and not leave observable evidence.

Same question applies.

Jan Ardena.

[Raithere]

the paradox arises from the attempt to confine a non-material subject to physical laws. the subject is not material and therefore not beholden to physiocal laws.

Here is where you go off track. No one is trying to confine the soul to physical laws. However the body is most certainly confined to physical laws. Or is this to which you object?

a bridge is only necessary when you confine the subject to regulations that require a vehicle of expression. the immaterial soul has no restriction to this requirement for a vehicle of expression as by definition it has no properties that restrict it to such needs

Does the soul affect the material world? If so, this effect can be observed.

something that flashes in and out of existence maybe

Let me repeat this again so it's real clear. If it has an affect upon the physical world that effect can be detected.

Can I make it any clearer?

~Raithere

[Raithere]

He must give a definition of what it is that reacts, and how it reacts.

Boris isn't talking about detecting the soul itself but how it affects the physical world.

We don't have to be able to observe the thing itself as long as we can observe its effect.

Take gravity for instance. No one has ever observed a graviton yet we clearly know that gravity exists because of its effect upon the physical world.

If the soul affects the material world then its effect can be observed. What the soul is, how it acts upon the world, what its other properties are is irrelevant to this part of the argument. So unless you'd like to provide argument why this is not so you're simply avoiding the argument.

So I'll ask again nicely. Please provide argument as to why the effect a soul has would not be observable.

Most explicit atheists, in my experience, are just spoilt little brats in a constant state of anxiety, maybe because they know that their belief system is shite. So if you're annoyed, and it is a problem, go see a counciler.

Atheism is not a belief system so you're just talking out your ass as far as that goes. And the only anxiety I feel here is due to the disingenuity of theists such as you who refuse to address the point.

~Raithere

[(Q)]

scientific instuments are restricted to the physical laws and to observing physical properties. proper instruments are detecting physical changes but what is used to detect the non physical changes in the non-material soul? no! no must's. it is by definition not subject to any must, should, will or would these are expectations from the material realm. this is all equivalent to 'matter is physical the soul is not'

Ellion, if I may, repeat and parrot what Raithere has been trying to say.

Scientific instruments measure the effects of the physical world.
The body is constrained to the physical world, hence scientific instruments can measure the effects of the body.
In order for the soul to interact with the body, there must be some sort of effect on the body.
Scientific instruments can therefore measure those effects, hence we can confirm the presense of the soul, whether it is immaterial or otherwise.

How can we make this anymore clearer?

[Jan Ardena]

Raithere,

Boris isn't talking about detecting the soul itself but how it affects the physical world.

As far as I can see Boris gives no indication of a) what the soul is or b) what effect it should have on the physical world. So WTF is Boris banging on about? Can you tell me?

We don't have to be able to observe the thing itself as long as we can observe its effect.

*sheeesh*
Well how do you know what the effects are unless you have at least some idea of the thing itself.

If the soul affects the material world then its effect can be observed.

What exactly would be observed?

What the soul is, how it acts upon the world, what its other properties are is irrelevant to this part of the argument.

Nonsense.
Boris asserts the soul does not exist (as do you), he gives some nonsense points as reasons, which assumes he knows what the soul is (hypothetically), yet he gives no definition of what it is. Until a definition is put foreward, no serious theist would entertain his drivel.

So unless you'd like to provide argument why this is not so you're simply avoiding the argument.

Obviously not, as neither you, I, or anyone here can explain what Boris is banging on about, so we can refute or advance his concept. My presence in this thread (at the moment) is not to agree or refute Boris's concepts, but to understand what he is talking about.

So I'll ask again nicely. Please provide argument as to why the effect a soul has would not be observable.

Who said it would be observable or not? I am not interested in whether or not the soul exists with regard to this thread. My interest is; what is Boris's definition of the soul? It is as simple as that. If you cannot provide an answer, then be on your way and don't waste my time.

Atheism is not a belief system so you're just talking out your ass as far as that goes.

Yeah right!

And the only anxiety I feel here is due to the disingenuity of theists such as you who refuse to address the point.

What the hell are you talking about?
As far as I can tell this thread is non-scientific athiest bullshit, the thread-starter is a DEVOUT atheist, the essay put foreward is atheist dogma.
I'm just a bystander trying to figure out what it is exactly, you're all talking about.

Now quit stalling and explain what Boris is on about, or take a hike.

Jan Ardena.

[Sarkus]

Or it is superior to matter.

"Superior"? What do you mean by this?
Matter has no "status" for something to be inferior or superior to it.
Matter just is. It exsits.

If it is not material it is immaterial.
If you think there is an alternative, please provide evidence of it.

You are assuming that the laws of matter is the be all end all. Have you considered that it might not be.

We do not interact with anything that is immaterial.
ALL our actions are with the material.
Only the material interacts with us.

Please give one example where we interact with the immaterial.

In what way does music act according to the laws of nature?

You mean through the physical qualities of the sound-waves - frequency, amplitude, wave-length etc?

Is music included in the laws of nature?

Very much so. Which is why every person favours different music - as their own neuroligal pathways, forming and decaying from inception to death, interprets music and stimulates us in different ways.
Take away the audio receptors in our ears - the little things that pick up sound waves - and we hear no music (unless the bass is sufficient to physically vibrate the surroundings).

Can you give some evidence of this?

The onus of proof is on you. You are the one making the assertion / claim that the immaterial can and does interact with the material.

Apart from "immaterial" how else would you define the soul?

I wouldn't define it. I don't believe it exists. To me it is a meaningless concept - much like "God" is meaningless. I can only start with definitions that other people supply.
I agree with Boris in that most people seem to apply the property of "immateriality" to their definitions of "soul".

What if the laws of the universe were dependant on the soul?

And what if they were dependent upon a ham sandwich I ate for lunch, or the tooth-fairy, or the pink unicorn in my garage?

What would you look for?

Anything that can not be explained through some other, more logical and rational means.
And when I say "observable" I do not merely mean what is possible with today's technology - I mean it in the absolute sense.

"When you have eliminated the possible, only the impossible remains".


Don't get me wrong - the soul MAY EXIST.
But it is just like God - in that if it does it can not interact with us and is a meaningless concept.
It is not that I believe God / the Soul does not exist, I merely do not have a belief that they do. There is no evidence for it.

An immaterial "thing" may exist - but it is a meaningless "thing" with no possibility of interacting with the material.

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
In what way does music act according to the laws of nature?

You mean through the physical qualities of the sound-waves - frequency, amplitude, wave-length etc?

No.
In what way does music ACT according to the laws of nature?
Sound-waves, frequency-amplitude, wave-lenght etc, we know about.

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
Is music included in the laws of nature?

Very much so. Which is why every person favours different music - as their own neuroligal pathways, forming and decaying from inception to death, interprets music and stimulates us in different ways.

Whose talking about interpretation? If music is a LAW OF NATURE then it should be observed, independantly. What is the scientific explanation of music?

Take away the audio receptors in our ears - the little things that pick up sound waves - and we hear no music (unless the bass is sufficient to physically vibrate the surroundings).

Again, please give an objective definition of music, so that I can see it.

Jan Ardena.

[(Q)]

Now quit stalling and explain what Boris is on about, or take a hike.

Not up for the challenge? You know what the post is about, so stop playing dumb. You can either attempt refutation of boris' post or not.

But I seriously doubt, based on your past posts, you're even a contender.

His post is WAY out of your league.

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

Not up for the challenge? You know what the post is about, so stop playing dumb. You can either attempt refutation of boris' post or not.

Very funny.
There is nothing to refute, as I am not fully aware of Boris's position,ie, his definition of the soul. So you explain it to me, then we can make a start. Yeah?

But I seriously doubt, based on your past posts, you're even a contender.

His post is WAY out of your league.

He may well be, but until some definition his understanding of the soul is put-foreward, nobody can advance his points, they just remain atheist dogma.

Jan Ardena.

[Sarkus]

No.
In what way does music ACT according to the laws of nature?
Sound-waves, frequency-amplitude, wave-lenght etc, we know about.
...
Whose talking about interpretation? If music is a LAW OF NATURE then it should be observed, independantly. What is the scientific explanation of music?
...
Again, please give an objective definition of music, so that I can see it.

Are you serious??

Music is nothing more than a word we give to regular vibrations (soundwaves) that have an affect within our neural pathways and brain that illicits some emotional response.
It differs to "noise" in that noise is composed of irregular vibrations, although can equally illicit emotions.
Bear in mind that I am not a biologist or a neurologist or doctor etc.

But music is entirely physical.
We convert the PHYSICAL soundwaves into PHYSICAL reactions in our brain.

Music CAN be measured, and observed.
We merely have to put a microphone in front of a singer - or a guitarist.
We MEASURE it - we OBSERVE it.

If we go into microscopic detail we could even record / observe the airwaves being created by whatever it is vibrating that is making the music.

Depending upon the makeup of our brains, we each have different reactions to the same music.

Music is a subset of soundwaves.
Without sound we have no music.

However, "music" the word has more meanings, obviously. To some it is an art, to some their passion, to some it is other things. But at the root of all of them is the physical vibrations - and the physical interaction with the brain.

[Raithere]

Now quit stalling and explain what Boris is on about, or take a hike.

I already have. Repeatedly.

What is it that you still do not understand?

~Raithere

[Sarkus]

There is nothing to refute, as I am not fully aware of Boris's position,ie, his definition of the soul. So you explain it to me, then we can make a start. Yeah?

His position... to put it as clearly to you as can possibly be put... IF THE SOUL EXISTS AND IS IMMATERIAL IT DOES NOT INTERACT WITH THE MATERIAL.

That's it.
There's little more to it.

You don't need to know what the "soul" is or does beyond his assumption that it is "immaterial".

In fact, let's not call it "soul". Let's call it "X".

If X exists and is immaterial - it does not interact with the material.
It now makes no difference what "X" actually is.

In fact, let's simplify it further:
ANYTHING THAT IS IMMATERIAL DOES NOT INTERACT WITH THE MATERIAL

If you think the soul is immaterial then his position is known.
If you don't think the soul is immaterial then his position is irrelevant to you - and move along.

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Are you serious??

Of course i'm serious.

Music is nothing more than a word we give to regular vibrations (soundwaves) that have an affect within our neural pathways and brain that illicits some emotional response.
It differs to "noise" in that noise is composed of irregular vibrations, although can equally illicit emotions.
Bear in mind that I am not a biologist or a neurologist or doctor etc.

So a musician is someone that can create regular vibrations that have an effect within our neural pathways, illiciting emotional response?
So what differentiates "music", from noise, not considered music (such highway noise)?

But music is entirely physical.
We convert the PHYSICAL soundwaves into PHYSICAL reactions in our brain.

We can all understand that in order to play music, we need to manipulate soundwaves, and this create a reaction in the brain. But can you tell me what music is, not how it comes about?

Music CAN be measured, and observed.
We merely have to put a microphone in front of a singer - or a guitarist.
We MEASURE it - we OBSERVE it.

Can it be observed without the aid of a person?
Is there an explanation for rhythm, melodies and hormonies in concordance, which occur naturally.

If we go into microscopic detail we could even record / observe the airwaves being created by whatever it is vibrating that is making the music.

You say "making the music", i am interested in what music is, in the material sense, not what is used to create music.

Depending upon the makeup of our brains, we each have different reactions to the same music.

You keep on repeating yourself. What is music? Where in material nature do we find music? We (humans) know how to make music, we are aware of the tools involved, but what is it?

Music is a subset of soundwaves.

How do these soundwaves organise themself into what we call music?
What is the natural mechanism?

Without sound we have no music.

Without sound, we can't hear, period. This does not answer my question.

However, "music" the word has more meanings, obviously. To some it is an art, to some their passion, to some it is other things.

But surely this cannot mean anything, as it is purely subjective?
There has to be a material, physical explanation of "music" or it cannot exist?
Right?

But at the root of all of them is the physical vibrations - and the physical interaction with the brain.

This may not necessarily be "music", it could be any sound.

Jan Ardena.

[(Q)]

I am not fully aware of Boris's position,ie, his definition of the soul.

It is as an unmuddied lake, Jan, as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.

[KennyJC]

1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
2. Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.
3.
1. A musical composition.
2. The written or printed score for such a composition.
3. Such scores considered as a group: We keep our music in a stack near the piano.
4. A musical accompaniment.
5. A particular category or kind of music.
6. An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines.

Music is made up of sound:

1. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.
2. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
3. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.
4. Such sensations considered as a group.

We know music exists and where it comes from... So I don't understand why you compare it to the theoretical existence of a soul, of which there is not a shred of proof.

[ellion]

the soul MAY EXIST.
But it is just like God - in that if it does it can not interact with us and is a meaningless concept.

did any body else see the funny side in this?

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

His position... to put it as clearly to you as can possibly be put... IF THE SOUL EXISTS AND IS IMMATERIAL IT DOES NOT INTERACT WITH THE MATERIAL.

So, to him, the soul IS immaterial, nothing else?

You don't need to know what the "soul" is or does beyond his assumption that it is "immaterial".

That is a cop-out, and lazy.

If you think the soul is immaterial then his position is known.
If you don't think the soul is immaterial then his position is irrelevant to you - and move along.

If you're an atheist, and your intention is to win arguments at any cost, sure, but not everything is as simple as you like to portray.

To sum up.
Boris's post is very obviously bias toward ATHEISM, as he has not been bothered to give a proper definition of the soul from religious texts.
As such I wouldn't waste my time arguing with the likes of him, regarding such subject matters, as it would be a complete waste of time.

Thanks
Jan Ardena.