Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 7:59 PM
19 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,001 Year: 5,038/19,786 Month: 1,160/873 Week: 56/460 Day: 56/91 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Author Topic:   Do animals have souls?
kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 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 responded

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 303 (331562)
07-13-2006 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by kalimero
07-13-2006 3:58 PM


This is not going to go anywhere if you keep sliping in and out of the science forum. ("spirituality")

...and it will quickly end if I remain strictly scientific.

There is no objective evidence for the soul so it should be assumed to not exist to maintain parsimony.

Damn, good luck. Its reasons like those that I’m glad I’m done with school.

University actually.
http://www.bgu.ac.il/

Yeah, same difference to me, I got the impression you meant unversity and I just use the word school for any intructional institution.

But Wow! that looks like a really nice place! Is it expensive?

Here's where I went: http://www.uiuc.edu/

What methods do you use to check yourself? (if not scientific)

Nothing really that specific and definately not scientific. More of a musing or searching within myself to see if I still 'feel' my soul, kinda just questioning my own beliefs and talking to others. Plus I've looked in to scientific studies on consciousness and the mind etc. but nothing to exhaustive.

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.

The only property that it really has is the seemingness of its existance. I've alreaded stated that I don't think it is scientifically detectable, and purposely not so. The closest thing to it is the physical causes of consciousness and the mind and the science in those areas is underdeveloped and not really finding too much.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by kalimero, posted 07-13-2006 3:58 PM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by kalimero, posted 07-13-2006 4:51 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 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 responded

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

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 3958 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 244 of 303 (331718)
07-14-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by kalimero
07-13-2006 10:57 AM


How about making up your own goals for once?

A reason to live and a goal have nothing in common to me.

Empathic behavior is esential in social animals such as our selves.

Says who? We function quite well biologically without it. We do not die.

so are inter-personal bonds

Says who? Again we function quite well biologically without them.

I would say the ability to imagine a posible future gives alot of hope. (a trait not unique to humans BTW)

Science does not give us an ability to imagine. We already have that.
That is how the idea of science emerged in the first place.

The manufacturers of Flutine would disagree.

Of course they would. What better money maker?

You dont see how science can help people?!?
How about...umm...I dont know...medicine?

Science does not help people. People help people.

Thats just sad.

This is because you believe completely in science. It is where you have placed your faith.

Your just going to assert that? Is that your whole arguement?

It is self evident. Science is your religion. It is for many. You simply choose to ignore the fact.

And YOU are going to teach us? Try providing evidence first.

Hell no! :P Thats not my job! ;) It is for you to choose to see or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by kalimero, posted 07-13-2006 10:57 AM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by kalimero, posted 07-16-2006 8:06 AM 2ice_baked_taters has responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 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


http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion

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 responded

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

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 3958 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 246 of 303 (332860)
07-18-2006 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by kalimero
07-16-2006 8:06 AM


Whats so hard to understand, making goals for yourself and trying to achieve gives you a reason to live (and a good one too).

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.

Not so. Our mental and physical health is dependent - especialy at a young age - on empathy.

This is not true. "Mental health" is a very subjective idea. We would simply function under different circumstances. We are quite adaptable you know. The concept of Empathy is non essential to our existance.

Young children aquire an understanding of normal social behavior through inter-personal bonds, without them it would be very hard to function.

Hard to function? By who's definition? It is not needed behaviour. What is normal changes like the wind and is completely subjective.
As I said we are very adaptable.

Science doesnt give us anything - science is a tool

Exactly :)

it enables us to use our abilities for the best

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.

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.

Far better to achieve it by will.

Science is a tool. People help people better with science.

So the tool gaurantees a better outcome? For a reasonable inteligent person you endow a tool with some interesting innate abilities.

Bullshit. If you dont think science can help ("science is absolutely useless") you wouldnt have used a computer.

I never said science was useless. This is your knee-jerk reaction in defense of your belief

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.

The concept of science itself is not. The nature of your belief in it makes this so. You define your existance with it.

Your right its hard to see the purpose in science with all those facts in the way!

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by kalimero, posted 07-16-2006 8:06 AM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by ramoss, posted 07-18-2006 12:05 PM 2ice_baked_taters has responded
 Message 248 by kalimero, posted 07-18-2006 2:50 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 247 of 303 (332873)
07-18-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-18-2006 11:10 AM


YOu seem to dismiss any evidence presented with a hand wave, without actually dealing with any of the evidence provided , except with a sarcastic remark. There are numerous publications that deal with empathy in childhood development.

Not only that, you don't show any evidence of your own. Can you provide any objective evidence for a 'soul' at all? A definition for one that can be tested? This IS the science part of the forums.

So, what definition of the soul are YOU using. What is the objective evidence of this soul at all? Can you provide something rather than hand waving dismissals and avoidance?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-18-2006 11:10 AM 2ice_baked_taters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-19-2006 12:12 PM ramoss has responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 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 yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 303 (333267)
07-19-2006 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by kalimero
07-13-2006 4:51 PM


How does this "seemingness of its existance" manifest?

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?'

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.

I'll leave it at that for now, maybe you can prod me with further questions and I can describe it better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by kalimero, posted 07-13-2006 4:51 PM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by kalimero, posted 07-19-2006 4:39 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 3958 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 250 of 303 (333304)
07-19-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by ramoss
07-18-2006 12:05 PM


The soul according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the ethereal substance — spirit (Hebrew:rooah or nefesh) — particular to a unique living being. Such traditions often consider the soul both immortal and innately aware of its immortal nature, as well as the true basis for sentience in each living being.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

The soul is an immortal and spiritual body of light, the essence of which is Satchidananda and Parasivam, eternal, uncreated and identical with God Siva. The soul animates life and reincarnates again and again until all necessary karmas are created and resolved and its essential unity with God Siva is realized. The soul is the atman of the Vedas.
www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/virtue/SVGlossary.html

The spiritual life force or essence, carrying an individual's personality and consciousness of all actions.
www.wrexhamparaskeptics.4t.com/definitions.htm

There are many sources of basically similar definitions through out the world.The definitions themselves describe something that has no measurable aspect. You cannot see a thought. The fact that we are, and are interacting at this very moment is self evident. How we mechanically achieve this is imaterial...(hehe) I said imaterial ;P. All science will ever achieve
is to give us a measurement of some aspect of change of momentum over time that the soul caused. Our tracks if you will. The soul is a basic definition that describes the cause of what science detects. We still have no idea what a force really is either. The change of momentum with respect to time is a measurable way of describing a phenomenon. It is very usefull for achieving things in a very limited fashion. Facts derived from this mode of thinking do not define the phenomenon and only a fool would follow such folly.They descibe it in one way. You can mechanicaly describe all that I am and all you will ever have is a mechanical description.
Something mechanical is not animate as we define ourselves. If you wish to define yourself soley by the narrow view that science offers that is your choice of belief. I love how people who think of science as more than the tool it is, attemt to push scientific dogma upon things where it does not apply and when faced with the fact that everything we do is based upon belief and point of view they get all riled up and claim foul. The very basis for this sight is a prime example. The basis of creationism is spiritual and creationism is only one small part of that picture.. The basis of evolution is not spitual. Two very different animals that have nothing in common. To look at something from only one direction will only give you one view.
The mechanics of this life can be useful but are just the vehicle.
Evidence provide thus far is not the problem. The question is evidence of what. Someone elses interpretation is not mine. Very subjective.
Again, this forum topic has been misplaced.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by ramoss, posted 07-18-2006 12:05 PM ramoss has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by ramoss, posted 07-19-2006 1:02 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 251 of 303 (333325)
07-19-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-19-2006 12:12 PM


Well, I see you did use a mistranslation of the hebrew. it is a term meaning 'breath'.

Other than that, you just cut/paste a definition. Now that we have a definition.. see if you can find objective evidence that it exists, using that definition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-19-2006 12:12 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by kalimero, posted 07-19-2006 5:02 PM ramoss has not yet responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 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 responded

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 303 (333450)
07-19-2006 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by kalimero
07-19-2006 4:39 PM


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.

Thats what I was trying to do with:

quote:
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.

Is that too poetic and vague? Tell me what red looks like so I can get an idea of what you want.

Can you propose a way to test these properties?

No. Can you?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by kalimero, posted 07-19-2006 4:39 PM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by kalimero, posted 07-20-2006 3:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 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' [נפש] means:

1)breath of life.
2)person.

'neshama' [נשמה] 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' [רוח] 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 yet responded

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 551 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 responded

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

  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019