Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do animals have souls?
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 213 of 303 (330708)
07-11-2006 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-10-2006 7:32 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-10-2006 7:32 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-11-2006 10:37 AM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 218 of 303 (330860)
07-11-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-11-2006 10:37 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-11-2006 10:37 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-11-2006 3:29 PM kalimero has replied
 Message 221 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2006 3:39 PM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 222 of 303 (330882)
07-11-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by New Cat's Eye
07-11-2006 3:39 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2006 3:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2006 6:09 PM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 223 of 303 (330885)
07-11-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-11-2006 3:29 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-11-2006 3:29 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 226 of 303 (331014)
07-12-2006 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by New Cat's Eye
07-11-2006 6:09 PM


The claim that no evidence has been presented stands but that was not your original claim.
Message 184
Really? It has no proof, unlike "soul"?!?
Message 188
You do understand that this is the science forum?
You should try to base your arguement on evidence or at least some kind of logic I can debate.
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.
2ice_baked_taters has already said that there is no such thing as completely objective evidence and I agree. But you do have to present evidence which can be tested/falsafied.
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 the soul is not scientificly detectable then you wouldnt be able to experience it, because science comes down to what we experience, subjective as it may be it has to be tested.
I disagree. I think the impact on the world occurs in the mind, which lies somewhere between the physical and spiritual realms.
I think you just slipped out of the science forum right there; you assume the there is a spiritual 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
I never said that the soul doesnt exist (nor does science) - I have no contradictory evidence, all I'm saying is that there is no evidence that it does exist.
Occam's razor - Wikipedia
(like you said - parsimony)
but with my subjective evidence I conclude that the soul does in fact exists (with no objective demonstration required).
Required by whom? you? science requires demonsrations of the propeties of a soul, and I demand those things for my subjective experinces to, or else how would I knnow that I'm not just fooling myself. Its sad to see a person abandon critical thinking (not you!!! )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2006 6:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2006 9:45 AM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 236 of 303 (331445)
07-13-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by New Cat's Eye
07-12-2006 9:45 AM


Completely? I agree too but I'd say that there is completely objective evidence for all practical purposes. An apple falls out of a tree and hits me on the head, that's completely objective evidence in my book even if one could argue that you can't even really know that the apple exists in the first place.
Ok, so how do we determain whats more objective (more likly to be true) and what is less - I say testing the evidence and peer review.
False. You have too much faith in science. Its power is not limitless.
Science deals with the ability to measure the physical world - its actualy just looking around (thats how it was done a long time ago and it has not changed much).
That line doesn't make sense to me. I think we are using the term subjective differently.
Maybe your right - how about a definition?
Subjective Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
I think #4 or #5, how about you?
I don't assume there is a spiritual world, I conclude it
conclude it from what? how about testing it?
Oh but it seemed like you did. That's the whole reason I jumped in this thread. See my Message 221. It was a reply to what you typed in Message 218.
I meant that I dont have any contradictory evidence (my bad).
That's fine. I'm saying that I have personal un-scientific subjective "evidence" for the existance of my own soul. So, does this evidence exist?
You can believe whatever you want - I am a scientist and I think that it doesnt matter what your "subjective evidence" tells you - for the sake of honesty you have to verify it - thats what double blind tests are for - removing the subjecivity.
I say yes, you say no.
Actually I say I dont have enoght evidence, but for all practical purposes (as you said) it is no.
Sounds like a segway to a new thread to me...(dibs on not starting it)
On the 16th I have my last final test (physics 1) then I'll be happy to.
Yes, me. I don't require objectivity nor scientific discovery to believe that something exists.
And have you even been wrong?
You could know you aren't fooling yourself by trusting your own judgment. If you don't think you have a soul then fine that's cool, but I wouldn't hold that belief because science has failed to discover it.
I dont trust my own judgment that much, I have been wrong before - and I want to be as right as I can in the future.
science doesnt have to discover that there is [b]no[/n] soul, there is no evidence for it.
How do you know your not being fooled?
I dont. But I constantly check myself, so the probability of me being wrong at any time is lower then if I didnt check myself. This is because there are an infinant number of beliefes I can believe, but only one (or so it may seem) is right, therefore the probability of me getting it right the first time is 1 over infinaty - or IOW zero. The more I check myself the better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2006 9:45 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-13-2006 11:55 AM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 237 of 303 (331454)
07-13-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-13-2006 4:18 AM


Science will not give me:
a reason to live.
How about making up your own goals for once?
a reason to love
Empathic behavior is esential in social animals such as our selves.
faith In people.
so are inter-personal bonds.
Hope of any kind.
I would say the ability to imagine a posible future gives alot of hope. (a trait not unique to humans BTW)
Science will not help me:
Love anything or anyone
The manufacturers of Flutine would disagree.
Be a better person
You dont see how science can help people?!?
How about...umm...I dont know...medicine?
Understand what it means to share
I'm sure someone with a background in psycology could tell you. Being a biology student I would have to go with the biology of scocial behavior, or empathy as I have stated above.
In fact for all the things that truly matter in life science is absolutely useless.
Thats just sad.
I understand this.
Your just going to assert that? Is that your whole arguement?
Still people seem to cling to this belief.
When will they learn.
And YOU are going to teach us? Try providing evidence first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-13-2006 4:18 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-14-2006 10:02 AM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 241 of 303 (331553)
07-13-2006 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by New Cat's Eye
07-13-2006 11:55 AM


Right, so if the soul existed and it was something that you had to look into yourself to find (obtaining subjective evidence), it would not be something that we could not investigate scientifically. This failure of science should not be a reason to conclude (or assume) that the soul does not exist. Occam’s Razor works great in the lab, but not when talking about spirituality.
This is not going to go anywhere if you keep sliping in and out of the science forum. ("spirituality")
Damn, good luck. Its reasons like those that I’m glad I’m done with school.
University actually.
http://www.bgu.ac.il/
The probability of getting it right is worthless to whether or not it is right. I check myself too and I still feel like I have a soul so I continue to accept its existence. If your using something that has a limit to what it can detect to determine what is real then you could very well be missing out (being fooled). If you have had no experience with your soul and really don't think you have one, then that's fine. I just don't think you should use the lack of scientific discovery to be the reason that you don't think it exists. Becuase if it is real and does exist, science is not gonna find it and neither are you.
What methods do you use to check yourself? (if not scientific)
Maybe you can start by stating the propeties of the soul that you look for and compare that to the scientific expanation of the same property.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-13-2006 11:55 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-13-2006 4:19 PM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 243 of 303 (331579)
07-13-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by New Cat's Eye
07-13-2006 4:19 PM


But Wow! that looks like a really nice place! Is it expensive?
not really - the army covers my entire undergraduate degree (I did give them three years!!)
The only property that it really has is the seemingness of its existance.
How does this "seemingness of its existance" manifest?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-13-2006 4:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2006 10:12 AM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 245 of 303 (332157)
07-16-2006 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-14-2006 10:02 AM


A reason to live and a goal have nothing in common to me.
Whats so hard to understand, making goals for yourself and trying to achieve gives you a reason to live (and a good one too).
Says who? We function quite well biologically without it. We do not die.
Not so. Our mental and physical health is dependent - especialy at a young age - on empathy.
Says who? Again we function quite well biologically without them.
Young children aquire an understanding of normal social behavior through inter-personal bonds, without them it would be very hard to function.
Science does not give us an ability to imagine. We already have that.
Science doesnt give us anything - science is a tool - it enables us to use our abilities for the best - if you know about a disease only then can you hope to cure it.
Of course they would. What better money maker?
The fact is that alot of people have anxiety problems that dont let them express feelings and be 'open', and this drug helps those people solve thier problem.
Science does not help people. People help people.
Science is a tool. People help people better with science.
This is because you believe completely in science. It is where you have placed your faith.
Bullshit. If you dont think science can help ("science is absolutely useless") you wouldnt have used a computer.
It is self evident. Science is your religion. It is for many.
It's self evident that science is useless? care to elaborate?
Science is self correcting by nature (peer review, double blind test exc.), how exactly is that a religion.
Merriam-Webster Online writes:
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Religion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
You simply choose to ignore the fact.
What fact and why would I choose to ignore it?
Hell no! Thats not my job! It is for you to choose to see or not.
Your right its hard to see the purpose in science with all those facts in the way!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-14-2006 10:02 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-18-2006 11:10 AM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 248 of 303 (332947)
07-18-2006 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-18-2006 11:10 AM


Really? One must want to achieve for reasons. Within a simple goal lies a host of motivations. Without these basic motives a goal is not even possible. The reasons to live derive from the core motivations. The core motivations are the reasons goals are made and therfore the reason or reasons to live. If a goal ceases to be fun, enjoyable or rewarding in any sense it ceases to be a reason. A goal is simply a vehicle to experience the true reasons to live.
On the one hand you say things like "This is your opinion/belief", and on the other you say things like "true reasons to live" - what exactly is your take on life - is there an absolute reason?
This assumes science has some ability to bring out the best. This is your opinion/belief. It is a false assumption. Science has no qualities. We are the possessor of qualities and we express them through tools.
Bet its pretty hard to cure somebody's cancer if you dont know anything about medicine.
Far better to achieve it by will.
I've tried, sometimes you cant do it with psycological methods alone.
So the tool gaurantees a better outcome? For a reasonable inteligent person you endow a tool with some interesting innate abilities.
I didnt say that - I said "People help people better with science." {bold added}, its not hard to understand.
I never said science was useless. This is your knee-jerk reaction in defense of your belief
Really? So when you said:
2ice_baked_taters writes:
In fact for all the things that truly matter in life science is absolutely useless. I understand this.
were you just shooting out words? (a knee-jerk?)
What is it that you "understand"? What is it that "truly matters"? Would you say that human life matters? How about something less improtant like an intellectual pursuit?
The concept of science itself is not. The nature of your belief in it makes this so. You define your existance with it.
I define my existance with whatever evidence I have that points towards a certain hypotheisis about it. I dont have faith in science (and you can quote that one - just remember what 'faith' means).
Again you are giving qualities to a tool. Science has no purpose. We use it for a purpose. The value of that purpose is completely subjective.
The word 'purpose' here is (obviously) our purpose - that we give to science - there was no intention to literally "breath life" into the concept of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-18-2006 11:10 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 252 of 303 (333441)
07-19-2006 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2006 10:12 AM


I'll leave it at that for now, maybe you can prod me with further questions and I can describe it better.
And prod I shall.
I can't describe it scientifically and I'll pribably do a poor job describing it in any way. Its kindof a hard question to answer, like, 'What does 'red' look like?'
Thats understandable, maybe you can give some kind of analogy that would give me some kind of notion of what it is your talking about.
If you can provide this:
1) dont make it poetic - I actually want to undestand you.
2) dont make it too vague - same reason.
BTW: colors look like whatever wave-length hits your eye (390-760nm), that doesnt mean that if I dont know what an electomagnetic wave is then I cant see 'red', I just cant claim that everybody sees the same 'red' or that this 'red' is an actual physical property of light, it could be just me seeing the 'red'.
But anyways, my soul seems to exist and I have a feeling that it is a part of me and affects/is-affected-by me. It manifests constantly and subtly, it you could hear it, it would be like a low hum. If you could see it, it would be like a faint glow. Like I said, its hard to describe. I think my soul and my body interact, through my mind, and with others' souls, through their bodies/brains--->minds--->souls.
Can you propose a way to test these properties?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2006 10:12 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2006 4:54 PM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 254 of 303 (333454)
07-19-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by ramoss
07-19-2006 1:02 PM


Well, I see you did use a mistranslation of the hebrew. it is a term meaning 'breath'.
'nefesh' [] means:
1)breath of life.
2)person.
'neshama' [] means:
1)breath of life.
2)a spiritual entity that exists forever, resides in a persons body throughout their life, and in death leaves it and passes to an eternal life in "the true world".
'rooah' [] means:
1)wind.
2)spirit.
according to "The central hebrew dictionary" (translated)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by ramoss, posted 07-19-2006 1:02 PM ramoss has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 255 of 303 (333773)
07-20-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2006 4:54 PM


I think they did this thing where they poked at peoples brains and induced religious experiences and claimed that the brain was the source of them. I don't think this eliminates the possiblility of the soul being responsible for them as well, especially if the soul is tied to the brain via the mind.
It doesnt have to eliminate the possibility of a soul, it just has to offer a better hypotheisis to explain it (parsimony, remember?).
Is that too poetic and vague? Tell me what red looks like so I can get an idea of what you want.
I cant actually tell for sure, I just wanted some sort of property to base a experiment on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2006 4:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2006 4:05 PM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 258 of 303 (334273)
07-22-2006 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by New Cat's Eye
07-20-2006 4:05 PM


It just has to offer to who?
Everyone I would hope.
Me? Certainly not.
Why not, if I gave you evidence that what you think you feel is a soul, is actually something else - wouldnt you consider that maybe you got it wrong?
Occam’s Razor works great in the lab, but not when talking about spirituality.
spirituality? why is it different from any other hypotheisis and how can you proove that?
I was saying that if you rely strictly(exclusively) on objective evidence, and assume that if science can't measure it then it doesn't exist
I never said that, and thats not how science works - science moves forward by revealing things that, preveously, were thought to either not exist or were not thought of at all, it wouldnt be able to do that if it assumed that anything not masured by science doesnt exist.
then how do you know you are not being fooled into failing to realize that things do exist that are not scientifically observable.
I dont, anyhting I can proove to exist objectily (tentativly) is considered science - I dont know of any other way of prooving things. So if there are thing I cant proove - it would be futile to belive in them as long as I have something prooven that explains it, though I would not stop test it (if I can). In the case of spirituality - we all agree it is unproovable (by science, whatever that means, what else is there?) so there is no reason to go on believing in it as long as there is a prooven expaination.
Limiting yourself to that which is scientifically observable could limit the truths you discover, IMHO.
All truthes (tenativly) have to be prooven - do you agree?
and all that is prooven are truthes (tentativly) - do you agree?
What else exept science can proove anything?
I think that the soul lacks properties that are able to be experimented on, scientifically.
Then how did you proove it? What evidence do you have?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2006 4:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-28-2006 11:05 AM kalimero has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024