"Do we have a soul or not? Prove it!" (2015)

Originally posted by twhitehead

me: Combine them in any combination you wish at any time past or present. Atoms and molecules still do not think.

tw: I have no doubt at all that in combination, they clearly do. My mind is proof of that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 48 elements I think you concede you cannot locate where the thinking atom is. But you are sure some combination will produce thinking. Why can't you locate which element is the chief one contributing to consciousness and thinking ?

Something immaterial is doing the thinking. Your thinking is so subjective to YOU that no one else in the world has access to it exactly. Several brain surgeons may record where electrical activity is going on in your brain. But not one of them can tell exactly what your;e thinking about.

That is why when they attach sensors to s sleeping patient to study brain activity they have to wake the patient up in order for the patient to explain the thoughts which are ONLY known to him.

The privacy of your mind and the public accessibility of your physical brain prove they are not one another. Even if they are inseparable they are not one another. The brain is not the mind.

You are in a position to know your own thoughts and mental processes in a way that is not available to anyone else. ( a loving Creator God is the exception).

But that is not what you asked about. You asked how the first mind came about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By now you must have noticed that I expanded that question to any mind.

me: Matter, by definition, doesn't include the concept of consciousness or other mental features, however you combine it in any complex arrangement.

tw: I say it does in the right arrangement. And you are most definitely wrong that it doesn't 'by definition'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You did the easy part of holding me in suspense. Now follow on to provide a definition somewhere of matter which includes the concept of consciousness. I'll be looking to see if your source is some fringe New Age speculation or fringe Quantum Physics school speculation.

There is nothing in the definition of matter that states that it cannot include the concept of conciousness when arranged certain ways.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're going to provide us with a definition of matter which positively includes the concept of consciousness.

me: Why be in denial about it?
tw: Because it isn't true.
-----------------------------------------

Let's start with a standard definition in Dictionary.Com
MATTER -

noun
1.
the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed:
the matter of which the earth is made.
2.
physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.
3.
something that occupies space.
4.
a particular kind of substance:
coloring matter.

Please note point #2 - " physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like."

You're going to provide us with a corrective definition which says the opposite of the characteristic calling for - distinguishing of matter from ... MIND.

Originally posted by twhitehead

me: Your next post will identify the thinking atom among all atoms.
tw: No, it won't. False dichotomies will not get you anywhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're the one so big on the scientific method. So use your method and isolate the main atom which causes consciousness to arise.

me:
Then if there is no dilemma about the mind you should have little trouble in identifying the thinking particles.

tw: Sorry but it simply doesn't follow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're the one with such strong confidence in the scientific method. It would sure help to reduce the brain down to isolate the thinking particles.

I am looking forward to your definition of MATTER which positively includes the characteristic of consciousness.

tw: But I equally don't know the exact details of nuclear physics or even how B12 is used by the body. I do not need nor expect a religious explanation for either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Evolution did it." - Basically that's a religious explanation. Basically that's a dogmatic faith based assertion.


I don't. I merely claim that a religious explanation does not automatically follow as being true
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you just did.

skip ...


- which so far seems to be your sole argument. And despite your denials you are using the 'God of the gaps' argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No more than you are using "Evolution of the gaps".

So far you've shown reason for a close correlation between brain states and mind states. You have not proved the brain is the mind.
Failures at opportunities to do so are accumulating.

So we're at from you " No single atom thinks. But a complex combination of them does think. And My Mind is here to prove it."

But you're mind does not prove that thinking is going on in any other place but in your mind. The electrical activity that a brain surgeon may point to could hardly be reduced to examine your opinion under a microscope.

Or is that too religious to suggest that?
Clear it up by showing us a photo of a mental opinion.


me: Can you take a slab of your brain and post up a photograph of the molecules which form your appreciation for some favorite song?

No, but it will almost certainly be possible in the future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your faith in Scientism is strong.
But why assume it will be "almost certainly be possible" ?

Maybe human beings are in fact not omnipotent.
Should I assume science will "most certainly" demonstrate that someone could be his own mother someday?

You talk as if there are not limits to what science can do.

For the time being, we know chemical / electrical states of the brain are not the same as your thoughts.

I imagine a bright RED ball. No part of my brain will be observed as being bright RED.

You're in danger of reducing a human being into only a physical system.


There is clear scientific evidence that memories are stored in the brain and that we can identify exactly where they are stored and even delete or change them. I believe some studies have even demonstrated that they can be copied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, how many centimeters long is one of these memories ?

Explain what the problem actually is.
---------------------------------------------------------

I already have. And the problem remains.
When you include your definition of matter which positively includes a concept of mental consciousness, that will do something toward the problem, perhaps.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] me: Your next post will identify the thinking atom among all atoms.
tw: No, it won't. False dichotomies will not get you anywhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're the one so big on the scientific method. So use your method and isolate the main atom which causes consciousness to arise ...[text shortened]... includes a concept of mental consciousness, that will do something toward the problem, perhaps.[/b]

Do you have a problem admitting that if you slice through the brain, consciousness can disappear? You have heard of the term 'brain dead'? A lot of cases, running rods through the brain does not greatly reduce ones cognitive skills but slice it the right way and there is no mind left.
That is directly interfering with the connections in the brain. It is clear the connections together IS what gives us consciousness. Without those diverse and complex connection we would have the brain of a spider. You continue to want to introduce supernatural effects that give us consciousness but that is not needed. We ARE our atoms, and no, you can't find THE atom of consciousness because it is the total network of connections that leads to our consciousness.

The brain is amazingly resilient to damage, like the folks who have to have hemispherectomies, cutting out half the brain usually to stop epileptic seizures. The individuals involved no longer have seizures but have to learn some physical skills like balance and walking but their IQ doesn't even go down much, pretty much the same cognitive skills as before even though they literally have half a brain.

But if you make the wrong cuts, you end up with a brain dead vegetable.

Originally posted by sonship
In the 48 elements I think you concede you cannot locate where the thinking atom is.

I consider that to be dishonest wording on your part. 'Conceede' suggests I am admitting failing to do something that I claimed to be able to do. I have never claimed there is a thinking atom. That is your own idea not mine. Do I agree with you that there is no such thing as a thinking atom? Yes, I agree. I do not 'conceede'.

But you are sure some combination will produce thinking.
Yes.

Why can't you locate which element is the chief one contributing to consciousness and thinking ?
Because there is no 'chief one'. All are required.

Something immaterial is doing the thinking. Your thinking is so subjective to YOU that no one else in the world has access to it exactly. Several brain surgeons may record where electrical activity is going on in your brain. But not one of them can tell exactly what your;e thinking about.
Not really surprising given that brain surgeons do not study such things. But someone who does study such things and with the right equipment, might be able to tell what I was thinking. I know for a fact that devices have been made that can allow you to control a computer with your thoughts. Clearly the computer can learn to 'know what you are thinking' to a limited extent.

The privacy of your mind and the public accessibility of your physical brain prove they are not one another.
No, it only proves that we don't know how the brain works or lack instrumentation to look at it closely enough. I can assure you that you could not tell me what my computer was doing by getting out your microscope and examining the memory chips and CPU. It would not however prove that the computers processing was not entirely physical - and in fact very well understood.

By now you must have noticed that I expanded that question to any mind.
Yes. Nevertheless, you still tried to switch the question. You initially asked me how a brain came into being. Now you are claiming that atoms or molecules cannot think. You acted like you had asked me the latter.

You did the easy part of holding me in suspense. Now follow on to provide a definition somewhere of matter which includes the concept of consciousness.
Please learn to read. I never made any such claim. You claimed that matter by definition cannot think. The definition of matter does not include the phrase 'cannot think' or anything equivalent. I never claimed that the definition includes the phrase 'can think'.
Tell us, can matter power stars? Or even cars for that matter? Does the definition of matter say 'powers stars and cars'?
No, I didn't think so.
But if you claim that matter by definition does not power stars or cars, then you are fool. (and I don't care if its August).

Originally posted by sonship
I already have. And the problem remains.

No, you have not. If you think you have, please restate it in clear English.

Originally posted by sonhouse
... you end up with a brain dead vegetable.

To be honest, a brain dead vegetable doesn't sound very appetizing. I will though try it in a casserole this evening and let you know how it goes.

As an aside, we may not have a soul, but we do have a David Soul: (So 'Don't give up on us, baby.)

Originally posted by sonship
No more than you are using "Evolution of the gaps".

Not so. I never used 'evolution of the gaps' in any way shape or form.

Your faith in Scientism is strong.
But why assume it will be "almost certainly be possible" ?
Because I know enough of the relevant science to know that we will probably be able to do it.

You talk as if there are not limits to what science can do.
No, I did use the phrase 'almost certainly'. Clearly I do not assume it is a done deal.

I imagine a bright RED ball. No part of my brain will be observed as being bright RED.
If my computer imagines a bright RED ball, do you expect its circuits to also shine red?

You're in danger of reducing a human being into only a physical system.
You are in danger of looking the fool.
It is blatantly obvious that I think memories are stored in the brain in some encoded way. It is just plain stupid to suggest that I think the colour RED is stored as RED dye, or that the stored memory would emit red light when observed under the microscope.

The fact is however that there are computers in existence today that when hooked up to you via electrodes and given some training, could tell you when you were thinking of the colour.

Here is an example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/7987821/Mind-reading-machine-can-convert-thoughts-into-speech.html

Originally posted by sonhouse

Do you have a problem admitting that if you slice through the brain, consciousness can disappear?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. But research on some NDE (Near Death Experience) and OBE (Out of Body Experience) gives us some reason to believe that the self and identity can remain even in a severely impaired material brain.

People have come out of a coma and reported the details of things that they were cognizant of which they had no way of knowing. So I think the we have good scientific reasons to believe the soul can continue to exist when the brain is damaged.

It is not desireable that a disconnect be sought. But soul body dualism is evident.

I would also say that soul / body dualism has been a belief held by various diverse cultures of civilization throughout history. This does not prove it is true. But we should not so casually dismiss it. I think that would be modern arrogance to too easily it as counter-intuitive.

You have heard of the term 'brain dead'?
-----------------------------------------------------------

I have heard. And I knew a person whose brother was in a severe car accident and in a deep coma for days. When he came out of it he had apparently, somehow, become either a new believer in Christ or and intensified one WHILE he had been a few days totally unresponsive outwardly.

I know another true testimony. Someone had ODed on drugs and was lying powerless on the ground. He heard his "friends" discussing the situation in his state of total incapacitation. To them he appeared "brain-dead" and just about "dead" in any sense.

He heard them say "Let's move him over to those bushes and leave him there." Fear welled up inside his limp body. He was terrified that his "friends" were not going to call medical help, but instead just "cover up" the situation by stashing him away in the bushes.

While he was gripped with terror he heard in the distance a voice of a woman praying " Oh Jesus, help that child ! ". According to this person's testimony, at the name of Jesus the terror in him was suddenly turned to a great peace.

I believe the man's account as to how he became a Christian.
And I believe that his soul, beyond the help of his "friends" was rescued by the Savior Jesus Christ.

A disclaimer: I don't take every NDE (dear death experience) without some skepticism. IE. tunnels and lights and so and so forth. The two testimonies above, I believe.

A lot of cases, running rods through the brain does not greatly reduce ones cognitive skills but slice it the right way and there is no mind left.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No doubt - "I" would be effected by such damage if it were done to me. But I think identity can remain even when functionality is reduced.


That is directly interfering with the connections in the brain. It is clear the connections together IS what gives us consciousness.

The scientific approach would be to isolate those components in the combination of materials to discover WHERE the one or ones are that are contributing to the existence of self awareness.

I don't think a self aware particle exists. And the scientific approach would be to detect which ones have this feature.
Good luck.

We ARE our atoms, and no, you can't find THE atom of consciousness because it is the total network of connections that leads to our consciousness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Across diverse civilizations across diverse times many people have believed that we are more than our physical parts. We saw what happened to a Soviet Union dedicated to a philosophy of consummate materialistic view of man.

And we are having our own problems in the "Free World" with an attitude that we are just material stuff and the material stuff that we own.

In one case if you dream that we are just our material make up humans are reduced to being like animals in the zoo cages. Ruling powers assume that all that is needed is material sustenance and everything will go fine.

Do you want your children and grand children to grow up in a society in which they are merely like caged animals that only need food, water, and a little shelter ? If so you can work for a wide spread philosophy that we are just out material parts.

The brain is amazingly resilient to damage, like the folks who have to have hemispherectomies, cutting out half the brain usually to stop epileptic seizures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "ego" is relieved of the body doing things involuntarily. The personhood, the identity is assisted in some eliminating some kind of damage in the brain giving rise to a missing cooperation between the immaterial self and the physical self.


The individuals involved no longer have seizures but have to learn some physical skills like balance and walking but their IQ doesn't even go down much, pretty much the same cognitive skills as before even though they literally have half a brain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "individual" is more than just their working body parts.

You continue to want to introduce supernatural effects that give us consciousness but that is not needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, if you believe that your evolutionary process could take matter which has the potential of self awareness somewhere in it, and arrive with a human being, why not a Supreme Being some day too ?

Do you think your Evolution process could therefore cause a Supreme self aware ultimate Person to emerge? If so then Evolution may one day bury your Atheism!

Originally posted by twhitehead

me: But you are sure some combination will produce thinking.
tw: Yes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



me: Why can't you locate which element is the chief one contributing to consciousness and thinking ?

tw: Because there is no 'chief one'. All are required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, at the moment I think this is like saying one million zeroes added together will make 1.

The scientific method would be to locate which one of these zeroes has a little more than zero in it so that in the combination you arrive at something other than zero.

Where is the element of self consciousness, self awareness, self identity, coming from? That is what I want to know if mental existence is potentially residing in matter.

CERN is looking for ever smaller sub-atomic particles. That's where you should look, to see if a conscious particle that is discovered.

God - uncreated, eternal, and of infinite power that created us in His own image, as a concept revealed to man, has explanatory power in this mystery of consciousness. Sorry.

As to you're hoping science will provide that photograph "most certainly" of say, my appreciation of Bruckner's 8th symphony over his 3rd? You can certainly hope that.

I hope for the second coming of Christ.
And you have your secular religious "faith" in Scientism.
And I think that may be why you like to discuss your faith in scientism here in Spirituality.

What I asked sonhouse I also would ask you before I have to suspend.

Anything preventing Evolution from one day causing a Supreme Being Mind to emerge and thereby causing your Atheism to have to be given up?

Originally posted by sonship
Well, at the moment I think this is like saying one million zeroes added together will make 1.

And I in turn think your demand for a single 'thinking atom' is ridiculous in the extreme.

My computer can add numbers. That I hope is undeniable. The process by which it does so is well understood. It is an entirely physical process even though it is acting on information.
My challenge for you: which of the elements in my computer does the adding? Which atom is the 'chief adder'? Show me the physics book that talks about atoms being able to add.
Can't do it? Then explain why your demands do not apply equally well to addition in computers.

Next I want you to show me which water molecule makes the Zambezi river a river. According to you the scientific method should be able to locate which one of the water molecules is a little more riverish than the rest.

Anything preventing Evolution from one day causing a Supreme Being Mind to emerge and thereby causing your Atheism to have to be given up?
That depends I suppose on what you mean by 'a supreme being mind'. I certainly think biological evolution may lead to minds far superior to ours, although I think evolution of machines will get there first. I am less inclined to call any such mind a 'supreme being' or 'god' and thus I would be unlikely to call myself a theist should I meet one.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I consider that to be dishonest wording on your part. 'Conceede' suggests I am admitting failing to do something that I claimed to be able to do. I have never claimed there is a thinking atom. That is your own idea not mine. Do I agree with you that there is no such thing as a thinking atom? Yes, I agree. I do not 'conceede'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So according to your view that sense of being morally wronged by me is an electrical - chemical event dealing with matter only. Is that your view?

The moral rightness or moral wrongness is purely an electrical - chemical event the nature of which could be described by the standard symbols available to a physicist.

Can you isolate the combination of atoms which constitute "fair" treatment as opposed to "dishonest" treatment ? Is there a morally "RIGHT" atomic combination which should have been employed by my material brain as opposed to the morally "NOT RIGHT" atomic combination that was used ?

It seems to me that I probably have "conceded" a point or more to you too. Anyway, your science should be able to pinpoint the moral wrongness of the offense, analyze the chemical / electrical event for its moral constitution.

Your being annoyed or offended or whatever also should have a weight to that combination of atoms / molecules, in theory. Right ?

When will Christians relent to the fact that evil exists? When will it become clear that no Bible text can explain this? Sonship, you try.....but, your efforts are futile.

God has said that ALL human life matters. Yet, the millions of Jews that were sent to the gas chambers clearly demonstrate that something is missing.

Sonship, you cannot continue to quote Bible scripture any longer, because Bible scripture is wrong. If human life mattered at all, then millions of Jews would not have died.

Please come to this conclusion: That a deity exists, and we have NO idea who or what this deity is. To quote Bible scripture is futile, and laughable sonship.

Originally posted by chaney3
When will Christians relent to the fact that evil exists? When will it become clear that no Bible text can explain this? Sonship, you try.....but, your efforts are futile.

God has said that ALL human life matters. Yet, the millions of Jews that were sent to the gas chambers clearly demonstrate that something is missing.

Sonship, you cannot continue ...[text shortened]... e NO idea who or what this deity is. To quote Bible scripture is futile, and laughable sonship.

1 John 5:19
We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.
NKJV

If the whole world is under the influence of the wicked one (Satan) then the bible or more precisely, Jesus Christ, is our only hope.