1. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    03 Feb '11 21:259 edits
    I'm not the first to have asked the question which will follow after the preamble... Reveal Hidden Content
    (and asked it before a while back but didn\'t phrase my question from the outset to get the answer I\'m looking for)


    I think of *me*, i.e. the being that perceives the world around him, likes/dislikes things, thinks, plans, etc... as a manifestation of (or the interaction between) the material configuration of my brain with respect to inputs detected by my physical senses and experiences, memories/goals, etc.. catalogued within my material brain. If I get drunk, *me* turns into a silly sod who does all sorts of stupid "funny"(?) capers and professes how much his friends mean to him (much to my embarassment when I sober up). Reveal Hidden Content
    and then later vomit...violently
    When I'm sober however, I feel no such compulsion to act in this way (or at least with anywhere near the same magnitude). Now I know alcohol reduces ones inhibitions, but it is still my personality/my character/my drives being directly affected by something physical - this is consistent with a material view of one's soul (i.e. it isn't supernatural), and not so consistent with a supernatural soul.
    If I were to have a serious brain injury, then *me* would also change, as is evidenced by others who have experienced precisely that. Again this seems consistent only with a material notion of soul (I question whether I even need this word!)

    To put it bluntly I see no need to invoke the notion of a supernatural entity residing within myself that gives rise to the character behind the flesh. Instead of asking what a soul is, which in my experiences yields the vaguest of answers; I wish to know, beyond standard scriptural responses that I have some sort of "eternal-soul" or I was forged in the image of "God", chapter X, verse Y of Holy book Z says blah blah etc... where theists think I'm being short-sighted; that is:

    which part of *me* cannot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes?...why???
  2. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91531
    03 Feb '11 22:18
    Originally posted by Agerg
    I'm not the first to have asked the question which will follow after the preamble... [hidden](and asked it before a while back but didn\'t phrase my question from the outset to get the answer I\'m looking for)[/hidden]

    I think of *me*, i.e. the being that perceives the world around him, likes/dislikes things, thinks, plans, etc... as a manifestation of (or ...[text shortened]... *me* cannot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes?...why???
    [/b]
    You know I cant handle my whiskey (white wine) like I used to. Goes str8 through me. But I dont get drunk or say anything silly. I save that for when I'm str8.

    as regards to a soul, I can do without the concept. Even though Ibelieve there is something like a soul type thing, I've always had trouble talking about it, and have taken it as a sign to leave it alone altogether.
  3. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    03 Feb '11 23:083 edits
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    You know I cant handle my whiskey (white wine) like I used to. Goes str8 through me. But I dont get drunk or say anything silly. I save that for when I'm str8.

    as regards to a soul, I can do without the concept. Even though Ibelieve there is something like a soul type thing, I've always had trouble talking about it, and have taken it as a sign to leave it alone altogether.
    For me it's about 4 midstrength pints of cider and I'm zoggledReveal Hidden Content
    Yeah I\'m a light-weight...but this is good because it costs me less to get drunk!
    :] ...but anyway, do you believe we have a non-physical soul or do you believe, and more importantly, assert to others we have a non-physical soul? If the latter then I think you'd need some way of answering that question.
  4. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91531
    04 Feb '11 06:481 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    For me it's about 4 midstrength pints of cider and I'm zoggled[hidden]Yeah I\'m a light-weight...but this is good because it costs me less to get drunk![/hidden] :] ...but anyway, do you believe we have a non-physical soul or do you believe, and more importantly, assert to others we have a non-physical soul? If the latter then I think you'd need some way of answering that question.
    Midstrength?!?🙄 you evil,evil man. That is like someone hacking my ears of with a razorblade. All that does is make me goto the loo...

    I'm not asserting to others, although obviosly I dont think I have a soul and others dont.
    I just dont think its an important idea. There is a non-physical part of you that represents a link to god.
    The word has been corrupted by christians.
    If you study Zen or any really cool spiritual teachings they will not bother trying to outline and explain what a soul is, rather, they will tell you to either ask a better question or just keep meditating. Speculation is just keeping your mind stirred up. And about things that dont matter.

    I reckon we could talk about souls with christians and non-christians alike and still be none the wiser. Even talking about reincarnation is more fruitful (though not that much)
  5. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    04 Feb '11 10:36
    Originally posted by Agerg
    I'm not the first to have asked the question which will follow after the preamble... [hidden](and asked it before a while back but didn't phrase my question from the outset to get the answer I'm looking for)[/hidden]

    I think of *me*, i.e. the being that perceives the world around him, likes/dislikes things, thinks, plans, etc... as a manifestation of (or t ...[text shortened]... of *me* cannot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes?...why???
    [/b]
    "which part of *me* cannot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes?...why???"

    The part you are referring to. The part of "you" that exists after your body ceases to function. The "soul" is the seat of the will. The "soul" is that part of you that gives you identity.

    What more is there to know? Why complicate it further? It needn't be any more or less simpler than that. Let it rest there!


    Why? Why what? Why is there a part of you that cannot be accounted for by just the physical senses?
  6. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    04 Feb '11 12:334 edits
    Originally posted by josephw
    [b]"which part of *me* cannot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes?...why???"

    The part you are referring to. The part of "you" that exists after your body ceases to function. The "soul" is the seat of the will. The "soul" is that part of you that gives you identity.

    What more is there to know? Why complicate it further? It needn' ...[text shortened]... t? Why is there a part of you that cannot be accounted for by just the physical senses?[/b]
    You've effectively tried to answer my question as in the comical find 'x' joke as illustrated in this jpeg:

    http://mid4.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/find_x.jpg

    This isn't very helpful! Which part of my 'identity' cannot be described in terms of physical process and interactions of these processes? For example, if *me* can be accounted for by processes:
    {p_1, p_2, p_3, ... ,p_n} and of these,
    {p_1, p_2, p_3, ... ,p_m} are natural; then what are the processes

    {p_{m+1}, p_{m+2}, ... , p_n}
    that cannot be described naturally? (please be more detailed than the somewhat woolly "seat of the will" so I can go away and decide for myself that you didn't make a mistake and they absolutely cannot be described by natural processes)

    Why do you believe this to be true, what have you done to substantiate this?
  7. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    04 Feb '11 13:091 edit
    Forget the maths.

    The best souls come from Church's.

    The inside is soft but the soul is durable and takes slight foot impact.

    Sometimes slightly slippy on a wet floor, but the appearance is solemn.

    I go for the best soul in a Church. (preferably a pair of them 😉)

    Edit: ooops, I thought it was soles. My error. 😳😀
  8. St. Peter's
    Joined
    06 Dec '10
    Moves
    11308
    04 Feb '11 13:18
    Originally posted by Agerg
    I'm not the first to have asked the question which will follow after the preamble... [hidden](and asked it before a while back but didn\'t phrase my question from the outset to get the answer I\'m looking for)[/hidden]

    I think of *me*, i.e. the being that perceives the world around him, likes/dislikes things, thinks, plans, etc... as a manifestation of (or ...[text shortened]... *me* cannot be accounted for by natural interactions and processes?...why???
    [/b]
    when you are drunk you are still you, just a you that allows the excuse of intoxication to free you to do and say silly stupid things. Those stupid things still arise from YOU, booze doesn't implant words and thoughts into your head, they existed there already, its just that the gatekeeper is asleep and the inmates are roaming free.
  9. St. Peter's
    Joined
    06 Dec '10
    Moves
    11308
    04 Feb '11 13:21
    Originally posted by Agerg
    For me it's about 4 midstrength pints of cider and I'm zoggled[hidden]Yeah I\'m a light-weight...but this is good because it costs me less to get drunk![/hidden] :] ...but anyway, do you believe we have a non-physical soul or do you believe, and more importantly, assert to others we have a non-physical soul? If the latter then I think you'd need some way of answering that question.
    now this is a better phrased question. Is there a part of you which survives the body's death and decay? Hmmmm....objectively I cannot prove this, however there is much anecdotal evidence to support this claim (out of bodies experinces etc).
  10. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    04 Feb '11 13:22
    Originally posted by Doward
    when you are drunk you are still you, just a you that allows the excuse of intoxication to free you to do and say silly stupid things. Those stupid things still arise from YOU, booze doesn't implant words and thoughts into your head, they existed there already, its just that the gatekeeper is asleep and the inmates are roaming free.
    I agree with you thoroughly.

    However, if you are going to get drunk, at least do it in a good pair of shoes. 😉
  11. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    04 Feb '11 14:148 edits
    Originally posted by mikelom
    Forget the maths.

    The best souls come from Church's.

    The inside is soft but the soul is durable and takes slight foot impact.

    Sometimes slightly slippy on a wet floor, but the appearance is solemn.

    I go for the best soul in a Church. (preferably a pair of them 😉)

    Edit: ooops, I thought it was soles. My error. 😳😀
    yeah it does look a bit "mathsy" but I'm trying to isolate what I mean to joseph; for example *me* likes to say things silly...what physical processes are involved here? (correct me if I make any mistakes - I'm neither phycisist, chemist, neuroscientist, etc...):
    1) I have to recall from memory that saying silly things makes people laugh
    2) I have to recall from memory that when people laugh with me it helps to form closer bonds such that they are more amenable to stay in my company/help me if I need it
    3) Implicitly, based again upon what is stored within my memory I am aware that (2) will allow me to affect other goals with greater success
    4) I have to perceive some situation with my phyiscal senses and then calculate some response, drawing also upon my reportoire of words locked away in my memory (that forms my vocabulary), that will induce surprise in the listener to make them laugh. Processes 1-4 will require usage of the frontal, parietal, occipital, and temporal lobes as I reason, produce sounds or actions, observe some environment/listener, and access memory (amongst other associated actions) respectively.
    5) upon the listeners receipt of the silly action/joke I have to evaluate based upon their response whether they found it funny or whether they didn't - from here I may perform other actions (such as commit it to memory this joke failed in this circumstance (and reason it through as to why) or if it was successful compound it further)...this requires along with accessing memory, various other sections of my brain to perform these tasks.
    6) Processes 1-5 are merely the interactions between different neurons in my brain which also manifest interactions between my body and the outside world (like creating soundwaves etc...)
    7) Is the result of electrochemical activity within my brain.

    I may have (I have!) neglected other functions and so my question is which of the processes I have neglected, account for me being silly which cannot be described in terms of physical processes - i.e. why must I invoke the supernatural?
  12. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    04 Feb '11 14:531 edit
    Originally posted by Doward
    when you are drunk you are still you, just a you that allows the excuse of intoxication to free you to do and say silly stupid things. Those stupid things still arise from YOU, booze doesn't implant words and thoughts into your head, they existed there already, its just that the gatekeeper is asleep and the inmates are roaming free.
    I disagree, for by tanking myself up on alcohol, though it is true certain aspects of my character are given greater reign, it is also true that this character is operating with greatly decreased perception and reasoning along with other 'disabilities' and so the *me* when I'm drunk isn't quite a suppressed version of *me* when I'm sober.
  13. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    04 Feb '11 14:551 edit
    Originally posted by Doward
    now this is a better phrased question. Is there a part of you which survives the body's death and decay? Hmmmm....objectively I cannot prove this, however there is much anecdotal evidence to support this claim (out of bodies experinces etc).
    I don't like asking the question in this way because it gives rise to vague answers. If I'm going to accept there is some part of me that lives on after I die I have to be stopped in my tracks when I try to argue my drives and actions can be reduced down into elementary physical and evolutionary based processes.
  14. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    04 Feb '11 15:03
    Church's are the best shoes available. They have soles.

    They are made by Royal Appointment, and I have the pleasure of owning 8 pairs. Barker come a close second.

    I'm smiling too, mate.

    -m.
  15. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    04 Feb '11 15:12
    Originally posted by mikelom
    Church's are the best shoes available. They have soles.

    They are made by Royal Appointment, and I have the pleasure of owning 8 pairs. Barker come a close second.

    I'm smiling too, mate.

    -m.
    Didn't Jesus wear sandals?...do they have soles? 😕
Back to Top