|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Do animals have souls? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
I have already given you evidence and stated that I did so: The thing you refer to as a "who" is composed of "what"s (as I have already shown), therefore a "who" can, ultimatly, be explained by (probably) a collective of "what"s. Philosophy has little to do with it. Your evidence is the assertion of your belief. The persective from which you choose to attempt to define yourself. Nothing more. therefore it is simply assertion. That amounts to philosophy.
I am just following the logic that is derived from my evidence. You are following logic based upon your belief. Your philosophical point of view. In this question that is all there is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I happen to disagree. You have not yet responded to the evidence about how the brain effects personality and memories.. which is the 'who' of someone.
I gave testable and repeatable experiments. I asked for the evidence you ahve for your view, yet, I was ignored. Do you have any evidence for your point of view?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2444 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
Your evidence is the assertion of your belief. The persective from which you choose to attempt to define yourself. Nothing more. therefore it is simply assertion. That amounts to philosophy. That is not what I was reffering to, read carfully.If every piece of evidence is "just" interpitation, what exactly do you base your belief on? In order to explain the world you must accept the probability that the things your sensing do actualy happen (tentativly of course). Just because evidence is highly influenced by personal interpitation does not nessesarily mean that it doesnt represent some sort of probable reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
I happen to disagree. You have not yet responded to the evidence about how the brain effects personality and memories.. which is the 'who' of someone. I gave testable and repeatable experiments. I asked for the evidence you ahve for your view, yet, I was ignored. Do you have any evidence for your point of view? I have no more "evidence" for my point of view than you do.That repeatable experiments were done are not the issue. The dogma which gave rise to them and the conclusions drawn from them are the issue. They represent a point of view. Nothing more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
That is not what I was reffering to, read carfully. If every piece of evidence is "just" interpitation, what exactly do you base your belief on? In order to explain the world you must accept the probability that the things your sensing do actualy happen (tentativly of course). Just because evidence is highly influenced by personal interpitation does not nessesarily mean that it doesnt represent some sort of probable reality. So you are saying that a probable reality is highly influenced by personal interpretaion. Yes I agree with that. Belief/philosophy my friend
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I realise you wish to deny the evidence that is there.
However, I gave it to you. The evidence is the brain, people with brain damage of some kind, and how chemicals which change the brain chemistry can change the 'personality' and perception of 'self'. This allows for repeatable experiments, and the can make predictions about what will happen if someone has brain damage in specific parts of the brain.. and how the 'who' is altered. Can you give me any reason to 'reject' that as evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Can you give me any reason to 'reject' that as evidence? Evidence of (what) is the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2444 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
So you are saying that a probable reality is highly influenced by personal interpretaion. Yes I agree with that. Belief/philosophy my friend Maybe you should read the whole sentence...does not nessesarily mean that it doesnt represent some sort of probable reality. Evidence enables a logical connection between what you sense and the theory of the world you have - if those contradict, or at least your theory not supported, then your theory is incorrect, it does not accuratly desribe the world. there is no evidence to support a soul and therefore it does not accuratly decribe the world. BTW: try not using the "thats your opinion" arguement in every post, instead try to give the logic behind whatever it is you believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
[/qs]BTW: try not using the "thats your opinion" arguement in every post, instead try to give the logic behind whatever it is you believe.[/qs]
I call em as I see em. You simply do not agree. It is not your belief. I understand that. You simply wish to deny it. That is your choice.
Maybe you should read the whole sentence... does not nessesarily mean that it doesnt represent some sort of probable reality. It also does not mean that it does and certainly not excusively your view of a probable reality. Gosh that sounds like an arguement for the existance of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Sigh.
You do like being slippery, don't you. Why the avoidance? Evidence that the brain is the center of 'who' someone is.. and that the physcial properties of the brain effect the 'Who'. Changing the brain via damage, or chemicals changes the 'who'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
there is no evidence to support a soul and therefore it does not accuratly decribe the world. That statement has at least two errors. One is the claim that there is no evidence to support a soul. Slap an 'objective' on there and I'll give it to ya but your inability to observe the evidence does not negate its existance. There are plenty of us out here with subjective evidence for our souls. The second is the claim that the soul does not accuratly decribe the world. You cannot know this and shouldn't make this claim. I'm sure you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2444 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
One is the claim that there is no evidence to support a soul. Nobody has presented any evidence.
Slap an 'objective' on there and I'll give it to ya but your inability to observe the evidence does not negate its existance. If your hypotheisis about a soul is correct you should be able to demonsrate/give evidence of it, if you cant do that or if I am "unable to observe the evidence" then you have to rethink your hypotheisis because if you can sense/observe it then it has an impact on the world and can be demonsrated.
The second is the claim that the soul does not accuratly decribe the world. I didnt claim that. I said that the hypotheisis of the soul doesnt explain the world; the soul allegedly being part of the world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2444 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
I call em as I see em. You simply do not agree. It is not your belief. I understand that. You simply wish to deny it. That is your choice. Thats exactly what I'm talking about - there is no point to that arguement. Suppose Newton had been told that his theory of gravity was "just his opinion" - science would go nowhere - its futile.
It also does not mean that it does and certainly not excusively your view of a probable reality. I never said it does - but you did say it doesnt.
The simple truth is any evidence presented in this discussion is useless.As I said before it can only be defined by what you believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
One is the claim that there is no evidence to support a soul.
Nobody has presented any evidence.
Nobody has presented objective evidence. Plenty of us claim to have subjective evidence of our own souls. The claim that evidence does not exist should not be made unless you throw the objective in there. The claim that no evidence has been presented stands but that was not your original claim.
If your hypotheisis about a soul is correct you should be able to demonsrate/give evidence of it False. There could be stuff/things that exist that are not scientifically detectable. For all practical purposes, the assumption that they do not exist works great, but it remains an assumption. My subjective experience suggests that my soul does exist and the lack of scientific detection doesn't convince me otherwise.
if you cant do that or if I am "unable to observe the evidence" then you have to rethink your hypotheisis because if you can sense/observe it then it has an impact on the world and can be demonsrated. I disagree. I think the impact on the world occurs in the mind, which lies somewhere between the physical and spiritual realms.
The second is the claim that the soul does not accuratly decribe the world. I didnt claim that. I said that the hypotheisis of the soul doesnt explain the world; the soul allegedly being part of the world.
Thats what I meant. I meant what you meant. It was a bad cut n paste job. But it still remains that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science (and you) assume it does not exist and, with the principle of parsimony, it it the proper thing for science to do, but with my subjective evidence I conclude that the soul does in fact exists (with no objective demonstration required). Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down, "Science"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Well, "subjective" evidence can not be shown to someone else.
I mean, I am sure you are having 'feelngs' that you attribute to having a 'soul'. But, you can't demonstrate that this 'soul' has the attributes that many people attribute to it. .. that it is 'eternal' , that it exists seperate from the body, and that it 'goes to heaven/hell/another life' when your body dies.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024