|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Do animals have souls? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
I am Kalimero. I = self = what I said above. Kalimero is an expression - of genes and many more things. Etymology: Middle English (intensive pronoun), from Old English; akin to Old High German selb, intensive pronoun, and probably to Latin suus one's own. This definition is very unclear. Ones Own. What is meant by this.Ones own what? Web definitions for selfyour consciousness of your own identity wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn This definition suggests conciousness or identity belonging to what? "I am a soul." This is also from Britanica.Results 1-10 of 1,648. soul in religion and philosophy, the immaterial aspect or essence of a human being, that which confers individuality and humanity, often considered to be synonymous with the mind or the self. ^ I identify more with this.^ In the definition below I do not identify with the first part and only barely with the second. the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual lifewordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Definition in context This is what twice_baked_taters is:I am not a part of a person. I am not a cause. I am me. The soul. I am the possessor of all aspects of me. I am not the sum of my parts nor can I be properly identified by individual aspects of me. I experience being a person. This person the Kalimero experiences is a reflection of me. So far what I am understanding is that a Kalimero is a product of influences or the outcome of genes.The difference in the nature of all these definitions is fundamental. So I will ask again. What is a kalimero? Is it the product of physical events or is there a soul that I can identify that experiences all these things, can be identified by these things but is not defined by any one of these these things. Is kalimero a soul that experiences or simply a product of events? I wish to not experience the nonsense of web definitions which are other experiences. I the soul identified here as twice_baked_taters have given you my definition of myself.What is a kalimero? Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
I simply asked for a definition.
It has not been provided.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
I will try this once more.
I am a soul. What are you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Assertions! please provide evidence I am the evidence.
That is a very general question - hard to answer, but I think I'll try: I am the product of interactions between a comlex of neurons. Consciousness - Wikipedia Take a look at the 'Cognitive Neuroscience' section. I see. Kalimero is a productI am experiencing a product. Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Yes - whats your point? I am attempting to have a clear understanding of what I am experiencing.I now understand I have been attempting to interact with a product. How silly of me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Yet, you claim YOU are a soul. Yes. This is what I choose. Is makes the most sense to me.
What is a soul. Not what. Who. I do not appreciate being addressed as a what.
Does it exist after 'life'?? No "it" doesn'tAgain I do not appeciate being addressed as an "it". It makes the most sense to me that I will, based on what I have come to understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Yet you have no problem refering this way to kalimero{post 191}. Perhaps you care to explain why you find that such is okay from your point of view yet not so for others from theirs? Kalimero is defined as a product of interactions among neurons.Where is the "who" in this? I simply cannot relate to a product of interactions among neurons. This is what I currently understand a kalimero to be. If there is more, it has not been defined. How is it you arrive at the conclusion that the "who" you are is a soul? It makes the most sense. It brings the most meaning. No other word that I am aware of fits my understanding better or more simply and completely. There may be others in other languages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
The who is the neurological response from the neurons that acts as the analog computer. The 'who' is an emergant property of the action of the neurons of the brain, much like walking is an emergent property of someone moving their legs in the proper manner. A property is not a whoProperty is something owned By whom it it owned? Or is it ownerless? We can demonstrate this by altering a brain, and making a different 'WHO', by showing a personality/memory change. This has happened to people via accidents. Phineas Gage is an example of this. He was a normal railroade engineer, but an accident drove a metal rod through a certain section of his brain. He , suprisingly enough, lived. However, he had a strong personality change. He suddenly became a mean son of a gun. Here is a web site dedicated to the analsysi of the situation. http://www.deakin.edu.au/hbs/psychology/gagepage/. We all have personality changes. We deal as best we can with what comes our way. This happens without such circumstaces as above. The aproach to the situation above is based on a dogma that I do not acknowledge.I will explain my understanding in a way you might relate to. He, software/soul remains intact. He simply has to deal with hardware problems. Now, can you give a better definition of a 'soul', and show objective evidence that it exists? Or, is it something that we have to accept just because theists say so?
There is no evidence that proves the opinion of your above refference.It is opinion based on dogma. A point of view about observations. I do not share this point of view. I do not accept it just because theists assert. It is meaningless to my understanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
And YOU are not a product? (of evolution, of neural connections...) No. I am much more than the limited view through the tiny window you choose to peer.
What evidence do you have to support this claim (a soul)? and this time bring objective evidence - remember this is the science forum. I am well aware of the dogma attatched to science.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. Objective evidence is a falicy. All evidence must be interpreted. This topic was misplaced with good intention, never the less it was not correctly catagorized.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
No kidding. This is why in our sideline to this topic it could not be comunicated to me that a kalimero is a who. Science is only capable of identifying us as a thing or a what.Who we are can only be explained through creative philosophical expression.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
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. Assertions
Enough of this! lets talk definitions. Notice that the word 'who' (definition #1) is a pronoun and therefore comes to replace a noun - an object - a "what" (if you insist): I will be more than happy to recognise you as a causal effect of physcal interactions if you wish. However the conversation would end as I must recognise I am talking to myself. Come now. I am simply looking for a definition from you if there is one. Rocks falling from a mountain from weatherization. Lightning striking...causal events. The suggestion is there is no difference. The kalimero has given me nothing beyond this. If there is such a thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
I have shown evidence that 'who', (Our mind).. is a property of the neurons. Your just dismissing it does not disprove my conclusion based on the evidence of the study of the brain. Any evidence must be interpreted. All you have cited is interpretation. One you choose to agree with. I do not agree with this interpretation.I also do not agree with the dogma for the premise of the study. This interpretation simply supports your belief. And you are also using the logical fallacy of 'equivication' . The perm 'property' isn't just ownership. Property can also mean characteristic. Bingo! One is the possesor of property. So are you a collection of charicteristics or are you the owner of them? It is quite simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 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 5851 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024