soul gain

Originally posted by sonship
You seem to be uncustamarily more mentally astute today.
Sorry you're life is so boring.

day off watching the racing from York and reading some of the most tedious posts online most of them belong to you.

Originally posted by sonship
Yawning in a conversation is just a demonstration of rudeness.
So you can be rude.

At least you have a purpose in life, I guess.

and yours is to ramble and repeat the same old same old/its not that I disagree with what you say its the length of time you take to get to the point.

Originally posted by sonship

a collection of N chemicals alone do not have the ability to create consciousness. we have to look at the whole evolutionary process and all the chemicals needed at each stage.

It seems to me that you are saying in the "evolutionary process" something along the way is added to N elements to become N+1 with a potentiality of conscious ...[text shortened]... hrough infancy stages and proposed things which we now may regard as foolish.

Cont. latter

It seems to me that you are saying in the "evolutionary process" something along the way is added to N elements to become N+1 with a potentiality of consciousness.

I don't see how falling back on the process solves the problem of [b]where does the potentiality for consciousness enter into the process. That is in a strictly physicalist viewpoint.[/b]

no, this is not what i meant. you have put it to me a few posts back that if N chemicals make matter then why can scientists not take N chemicals and make matter.
i was trying to say that N matter arranged in Y formation creates the effect of, but to achieve N matter in Y formation there needed to be various other stages with various arrangements of matter. so a scientist with N chemicals would need to recreate millions of other stages before arriving at consciousness. which currently is impossible.


On a strictly physicalist view, the potential for matter to self awake and be conscious had to be brought in by some matter somewhere along the evolutionary path.

matter did not 'self awake' there is nothing conscious about the matter. the matter creates an effect which we describe as consciousness. as i have said before i think its the product of having so many sense related cells and a section of brain that feeds back these senses to the parts of the brain that feed the illusion of images and sounds, triggering language and memory giving the sense that we have an internal monologue. this system has gradually developed over billions of years. the more sense sensitive cells we have combined with bigger and bigger brains equals more and more consciousness.


I think relatives that I have known with dementia or alzheimers still showed some decision making freedom of will, in my experience.

is any amount of deciosion making freewill? if i can only decide to open or close my eyes, nothing else do i have freewill?

And I would not reduce the SOUL to just being the functions of the physical body.

does the soul have a personality? if so does it match the personality of the physical person?

So I feel I am no worse off in conceptualizing the dualism. You are just moving the complexity to a place you want it to be introduced.


mmnnn, im dont really agree, but its a fairish point.


I think they have to prove if it were sufficiently proven to yourself for instance, otherwise you would not have progressed up to this point in our exchanges. I think if it were so obvious that my brain was my mind you would not bother to debate.

not true and you are needing to invent an imaginary stance for me to for your point to work. i engage in a debate about souls because it interests me that so many people believe in them. just like i dont believe in god, but i like to engage in conversations about god. it doesnt mean that i am unsure about my atheism.


I would expect someone like you to pretty much no feel the need to waste effort and time if I

no, i dont see it as a waste of effort. i like finding what people believe and how they think. the more alien it is to me the more interesting it is.


It is not obvious that no God exists. And if God exists then a self-aware Being affords a very plausible explanation as to the existence of consciousness. That is if being created in the image of God indicates some reflection of God's being in our own. its unlikely that god exists, due to the lack of evidence. if a god does exist then i agree its plausible explanation to the existence of consciousness, it would still leave big question marks at the efficiency of having the brain and a soul seemingly doing the same job.


Third - I don't think we should lightly ignore that throughout history and across varied civilizations it has been held that the soul can be separated from the body.

i think we should ignore it. its because of ancient superstitions that we still have them lingering around today. the soul would only make sense in the context of a society that has no knowledge of how the brain works.

"We now know better" is not a concept I accept without some limitations. That to me would be foolish arrogance.

okay - we know more.


If I as a Christian jump to a conclusion that Jesus, who spoke of a dual soul / body nature of man, just didn't know as well as you, it introduces many more problems. The approvedness that Christ has established in terms of lack of self deception, integrity, honesty, knowledge of the human predicament, the mind of God, are not at all easy for me to hand wave away. For you the atheist they may be easy to dismiss, but not for me.


i understand, but it is your leap of accepting jesus is where all your logic problems begin.


Some NDE (near death experiences) and some ODE (out of body experiences) argue that we might be on the right track to assume a substance dualism of soul / body. Dismissing all reports with a hand wave of unwarranted parapsychology, I think, is jumping too eagerly to that conclusion.

its not too early. if a subject offers zero in the form of evidence then it needs to be dismissed until it does. whats stopping any crackpot from making any mumbo-jumbo up and saying you cannot dismiss it because it too early. many of its claims would be easy to prove, yet they offer nothing.......because its not true.

Sciences of all types through their stages of infancy. We didn't dismiss all biology, all chemistry, all astronomy, all cosmology, etc. because they went through infancy stages and proposed things which we now may regard as foolish.

its not a proper science, its closer to astrology than it is to astronomy.

Originally posted by stellspalfie

no, this is not what i meant. you have put it to me a few posts back that if N chemicals make matter then why can scientists not take N chemicals and make matter.

Could you give the link to where I said that please?
I don't recall and I am presently re-reading many posts here.

i was trying to say that N matter arranged in Y formation creates the effect of, but to achieve N matter in Y formation there needed to be various other stages with various arrangements of matter. so a scientist with N chemicals would need to recreate millions of other stages before arriving at consciousness. which currently is impossible.

Are you saying that it is non-repeatable phenomenon then ?

If it is non-repeatable doesn't that argue that the phenomenon may lie beyond the scientific method?

And I did not say it is not true.
I merely ask, is the non-repeatable phenomenon beyond the ability of the scientific method to prove that this happened ?

Another question is - "Would there be enough TIME for such an unusual lucky combination to occur even given that it was possible.

For what you propose, I am not sure 15 billion years is enough time for trial and error.

Another problem: Why on earth should such a phenomenon be "locked in" so as to stay? I mean, given that in 15 billion years of combinations of all kinds, the emergence of consciousness could come and go.

You're proposing that something said "STOP, this what is needed. Register this combination. Keep it. Preserve it."

This suggests a GOAL. But evolution has no goal and no direction and no purpose. Who LOCKED in the lucky combination of chemicals when suddenly the phenomenon of consciousness strung up ? Why wasn't that particular arrangement passed over like the umpteen trillion other arrangements as evolution goes on its merry random way ?

I just don't understand evolution.
Or maybe I should say that I just don't understand the sacredness of evolution.

matter did not 'self awake' there is nothing conscious about the matter. the matter creates an effect which we describe as consciousness.

I do not see a real substantial difference here.

as i have said before i think its the product of having so many sense related cells and a section of brain that feeds back these senses to the parts of the brain that feed the illusion of images and sounds, triggering language and memory giving the sense that we have an internal monologue.

I thought I proposed a situation of the mind doing something that the brain cannot do. For example, I do not believe that if you were told to imagine a NUMBER between 1 and 100 (or between 1 and 10) that any neurosurgeon gazing at any chart of electrical activity could tell you which number you were thinking of.

I think your response is basically "But ONE DAY ... we will".

But if we go by TODAY, I see no reason why science's inability to read a chart and dictate to you what you are THINKING argues for the mind being the brain.

From today -

1.) Why should I take substance dualism as irrarional ?
2.) Why should I take substance dualism as counter-intuitive.
3.) Why should I think of physicalism as having some rational high ground?
4.) Why should I consider that physicalism in this area has a simpler solution ?

None of these assumptions follow, I think.
I am left with a kind of "faith" ( for lack of a better word ) that one day ... one day ... old invincible scientific method will produce my private thoughts for anyone to plainly read on some physical medium.

That's a lot of "faith" going there.

this system has gradually developed over billions of years. the more sense sensitive cells we have combined with bigger and bigger brains equals more and more consciousness.

Given the NUMBER of chemicals involved, and the COMBINATIONS needed, and the TIME needed, and the number of variations PER second needed, do you really think 15 so billions years is enough ?

Given that it could occur at all, that matter arranged produced self awareness, you may need an universe 80 octillion centries older than what cosmologists surmise its age is.

On an aside, while we are talking about COMBINATIONS of things, I would like to ask you a question as an atheist:

Given that astronomy alone doesn't prove atheism or
chemistry alone doesn't prove God does not exist or
biology alone does not do so or
geology alone does not do so or
archeology alone does not do so or
mathematics alone does not do so or
psychology alone does not do so or
physiology alone does not do so nor
any particular invented science of mankind alone proves the non-existence of God ... then
Why should the combination of all of them together be expected to prove the non-existence of God?

Just kind of on the side.

is any amount of deciosion making freewill? if i can only decide to open or close my eyes, nothing else do i have freewill?

I don't know what you're driving at. I think it is sufficient for the discussion simply to say that some amount of freedom to choose happens in people who are not in a purely vegatative state.

And people in a unfortunate vegetative state MAY have levels of choice going on DEEP in their mentality which we know nothing about.

I think a purely naturalist physicalist view of man negates both freedom of will or responsibility. From the Big Bang down to me writing this post, then, is just the cause and effect of fissing atoms in an all-encompassing determinism.

sonship:
And I would not reduce the SOUL to just being the functions of the physical body.

does the soul have a personality? if so does it match the personality of the physical person?

Yes the soul has a personality.
The two, soulical and physical can influence each other, I think.

We have a lot to learn about it.
But reducing the soul to the body, I do not think is the way to go.

As stated before - a surgeon may know MORE about my body than I do in its physicalness. But a surgeon may not know MORE about my thoughts, feelings, and will than I DO.

Unless she asks me about these, she could be forever clueless.
That's today at least.
Something my MIND can do that my BRAIN cannot do - retain private secretive information.

If one WAS the other than this would not be true.

sonship:
So I feel I am no worse off in conceptualizing the dualism. You are just moving the complexity to a place you want it to be introduced.


mmnnn, im dont really agree, but its a fairish point.

Good enough. Think on its fairness a bit more.

not true and you are needing to invent an imaginary stance for me to for your point to work. i engage in a debate about souls because it interests me that so many people believe in them. just like i dont believe in god, but i like to engage in conversations about god. it doesnt mean that i am unsure about my atheism.

Hmm. Have you been everywhere in the universe and in all possible time ?
I suspect you will admit you have not.

And if you have not, is it possible that there could be God in some possible world at some possible time ?

If you say "Yes" I would have to consider that you have move from an atheist position to a position of agnosticism.

no, i dont see it as a waste of effort. i like finding what people believe and how they think. the more alien it is to me the more interesting it is.

I see. Well, you get a little taste of what I believe then.

Man was designed with three main parts:
Human spirit + Human soul + Human body.

Now I do have some real questions about this myself.
But I think by revelation the world has been told by the Designer that this is how we are made up.

The highest part of man - the human spirit - was created to contact the spiritual realm and God.

The part underneath that - the human soul - was created to contact other minds, other psychological beings with minds.

The part underneath that - the human body - was created to contain the former two immaterial parts in this world of space and time created for our existence.

So the three parts of man are designed to assist us in substantiating three levels of reality.

To make everything the soul or everything the spirit or everything the human body is to in one way or another undermine one's entire created being. It is to render us less human.

sonship:
Third - I don't think we should lightly ignore that throughout history and across varied civilizations it has been held that the soul can be separated from the body.

i think we should ignore it. its because of ancient superstitions that we still have them lingering around today. the soul would only make sense in the context of a society that has no knowledge of how the brain works.

I don't think we should completely ignore notions of people in the past.
Should we tomorrow ignore all the notions of people TODAY? I think not.

And we TOO have many superstitions.
I consider it superstitious that you would propose a random combination of chemicals over huge amounts of time would emerge and lock in that matter became conscious.

I am sorry. I regard that as no less superstitious than the earth resting on the back of an infinite number of turtles.

Maybe ... just maybe ... the thought of a multiverse of an infinite number of universes is also pure 21rst century superstition.

So folks of old had some funny ideas along with some truer ones, and guess what? Folks today also have some funny ideas along with some truer ones. So wholesale ignorin......

So folks of old had some funny ideas along with some truer ones, and guess what? Folks today also have some funny ideas along with some truer ones. So wholesale ignoring of what people thought thousands of years ago, I think, is not totally wise.

They didn't NEED to know about some things that we NEED to know about today. Doesn't mean they could not be realistic and even skeptical about circulating beliefs.

Plus the fact that we sometimes rediscover lost and valuable knowledge, ie. plant remedies. Wisdom can be lost over generations as well as gained.

Aside from all this, I think God revealed some things to the world by revelation. These includes things which we could probably never have known had God not told us.

sonship:
"We now know better" is not a concept I accept without some limitations. That to me would be foolish arrogance.

okay - we know more.

[quote]
i understand, but it is your leap of accepting jesus is where all your logic problems begin.

I don't think so at all. Think about it. What does following after truth ultimately entail in this life ? It boils down to the fact that eventually you have to put your trust in someone.

You didn't go through all the calculations Copernicus went through to demonstrate a sun centered solar system was more likely. You were told so by others. And you trusted them.

You didn't work out Newton's equations about gravity and motion etc. You were taught the bulk of it and you trusted some teacher/s.

Eventually, we all will put our trust in somebody/s. To trust in Jesus is the same in this regard. The only difference is that Jesus up front says to do so.

I'll give it to you that I am not always speaking within the rules of science. But science is not the sole and only means of knowing truth.
We can know truth by trusting the right person/s also.

its not too early. if a subject offers zero in the form of evidence then it needs to be dismissed until it does.

My suspicion of this attitude is that you will only adhere to it until such point that NDE or OBE seem to argue for atheism. Then I suspect that you will change your tune and embrace the study.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
LOL, Robbie is not a dogs name, its a Kings name! as in Robert Bruce, King of Scotland!

Just grand.

Then I'll name my next dog "King of Scotland". It might not fit, though, because dogs don't have monstrous egos.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Nice platitudes but the fact is we are on our own and no god is going to come down and fix our boo boos we have done to the planet and if we all die, we all die and that is the end of it for humans. Maybe something intelligent will come along better able to shepherd our planet, since we are bollixing it up pretty badly right now.

It seems your god or an ...[text shortened]... the planet, much less humans.

So we are on our own, no gods will help us, even if they exist.

Us?

God might not help YOU.

What exactly have you done to expect help from God? I mean besides bad-mouthing him and committing blasphemy.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Just grand.

Then I'll name my next dog "King of Scotland". It might not fit, though, because dogs don't have monstrous egos.

dogs don't have monstrous egos

you havent met my jack russel, known affectionately as 'evil lord spalfidore'. small dog....huge ego.