Originally posted by PawnokeyholeHard to say really, because there does not exist an objective bridge between those two worlds upon which to sit and view both. As the soul resides in the cranial area, there exists a great amount of sympathy between the brain and the soul. Where that line is drawn is elusive at this point.
Of something. Anything. More than nothing. The content doesn't concern me.
So, suppose I fall into a coma. Is my soul conscious or not, of something, at this time? Or does it remain unconscious while I am unconscious?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf the soul resides in the cranial area, does that mean the soul has a spatial location?
Hard to say really, because there does not exist an objective bridge between those two worlds upon which to sit and view both. As the soul resides in the cranial area, there exists a great amount of sympathy between the brain and the soul. Where that line is drawn is elusive at this point.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnother question:
Hard to say really, because there does not exist an objective bridge between those two worlds upon which to sit and view both. As the soul resides in the cranial area, there exists a great amount of sympathy between the brain and the soul. Where that line is drawn is elusive at this point.
Suppose I destroyed parts of your brain collectively, and turned you into one of those tragic but fascinating neurological cases of the type descrived by people like Oliver Sacks.
Would you soul undergo any correlated transformation, or would it remain unaffected?
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeAs long as the brain is capable of thought (itself difficult to determine with absolute certainty), the soul persists.
Another question:
Suppose I destroyed parts of your brain collectively, and turned you into one of those tragic but fascinating neurological cases of the type descrived by people like Oliver Sacks.
Would you soul undergo any correlated transformation, or would it remain unaffected?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe problem is as follows:
Insofar as an invisible, immaterial entity can be considered physical, sure.
An immaterial entity cannot be physical.
The soul, according to you, is an immaterial entity.
But if it is immaterial, then it cannot be physical.
And if it cannot be physical, then it cannot have a spatial location, as everything physical has a spatial location.
However, you claimed that the soul does have a spatial location, specifically, in the cranial area.
Hence, we arrive at a contradiction.
How do you resolve this contradiction?
By (a) concluding that the soul does not in fact have a spatial location;
by (b) concluding that the soul is material as opposed to immaterial; or
by (c) concluding (by defying common dictionary definitions) that immaterial does not imply non-physical?
Freaky, you stated that:
1)
At death, my soul would depart. Persist, but depart the body, nonetheless.
2)
As long as the brain is capable of thought (itself difficult to determine with absolute certainty), the soul persists.
Logical problem here:
At death, the brain is no longer capable of thought.
However, according to 2), the soul should not persist, as maintaining the capability to think is asserted to be a precondition for its persisting.
Yet, according to 1), the soul persists after death.
Could you account for the inconsistency between your assertions?
2 edits
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeLogically, they are not inconsistent. Just because the soul persists while the brain is capable of thought does not mean it doesn't also persist when the brain has been blenderized.
Freaky, you stated that:
However, according to 2), the soul should not persist, as maintaining the capability to think is asserted to be a precondition for its persisting.
There's the mistake. 2) does not describe a requirement for soul persistance, but rather one condition under which the soul will persist.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYeah, I considered that.
Logically, they are not inconsistent. Just because the soul persists while the brain is capable of thought does not mean it doesn't also persist when the brain has been blenderized.
[b]However, according to 2), the soul should not persist, as maintaining the capability to think is asserted to be a precondition for its persisting.
There's the ...[text shortened]... uirement[/i] for soul persistance, but rather one condition under which the soul will persist.[/b]
However, I concluded that the expression "as long as" really did mean "if and only if", and not just "if".
I guess it's up to FreakyKBH to clarify.