Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Evolution of the Soul
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 61 of 76 (254222)
10-23-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
10-23-2005 2:26 PM


Hi Schraf,
Isn't this a little pointless without first determining that a soul exists in the first place? Your opponents might as well be arguing how their Flargplatsh interacts with their big-toe.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 10-23-2005 2:26 PM nator has not replied

  
bobbins
Member (Idle past 3614 days)
Posts: 122
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 06-23-2005


Message 62 of 76 (254339)
10-23-2005 9:42 PM


Verbal Gymnastics
We seem to be all having fun in this discussion, moving goalposts, making completely unsupportable assertions and generally bobbing away from constructive discourse.
The thread lost any point when the definition of 'soul' was ommitted, and went into the stratosphere of meaningless when some people brought in the (unsupported by definition or meaning or anything other than confusion of terms) concept of 'mind' as separate from anything physical.
Any computer programmer can describe the (apparent) differences between the designed program and the observed results. The computer operates on a level that a computer would understand. Yet the answers/output are not what we would expect. The computer is happy that it has 'solved the problem'. We are not. The conclusion for computer programmers is to redesign the algorithm, tweak the programming or go for a pint. The conclusion for religious/theist/occultist minded people is to assume another layer is required, a 'self-programmed/other programmed' interpreter. That is, we are not asking the right question, or, more often we are not listening/hearing/reading the answer correctly. Or, as observed here on EVC, ignoring the answer and question, and coming up with your own answer without little reference to the original (meaningful) question.
The mind is the same, it operates on a level that the mind understands. Hence the possibility of existence of non-physical phenomena. Programming problems excepted.
Except that the mind is just a construct of humans. We require that our actions, thoughts, emotions and beliefs have an existance of their own and are not completely at the mercy of the (supposedly) random on/off firing of neurons in the brain. Without this we would just be another organism. So we construct another layer, the mind. This is the non-random, designed construct of the brain. The interpreter. Except that it does not really exist. To try and replace the chemical and biological reality with terms of your own and then define these terms outside of any reference to biology and chemistry is dishonest. But then again the interpreter may just be making me say that. Or not. Maybe.
The soul seems to be another man-constructed interpreter for the 'feelings inside' similar to the 'mind'. As an example, last week I had a good feeling in my bits that the Wanderers would beat Chelsea, at half time my bits were correct, at full-time we lost 5-1 and my feelings were wrong. Now a)my feelings are bollocks and are based on the support of my team (subjective loyalty), b)feelings based on my dislike for Chelsea (subjective disloyalty), c)feelings based on my support for Chelsea's main title challengers (subjective loyalty), d) mystical/ other-intelligence e)Bollocks. In any interpretation the 'feelings' were wrong. Any point proven, no!
I seem to have lost my point, I tried to answer 2 or 3 threads at once, and have failed dismally, oh well, looking back I hope I made a point or two.
My self-imposed exile has not removed sarcasm, so apologies for any offence. Yeah Right!

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Hawkins, posted 10-23-2005 11:34 PM bobbins has not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 63 of 76 (254350)
10-23-2005 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by bobbins
10-23-2005 9:42 PM


Re: Verbal Gymnastics
If a computer analogy is needed, I'll give mine as follows,
The physical part (3 dimensions), the brain is of the chip sets located on one side of the circuit board. The spirit is of the lead pins on the other side of the circuit board, which is of another dimension to be found. If someone taps the pins with an equipment, he knows what signals conveying currently.
With a 3D spacial concept, one can only see the physical parts, the brain, body and etc. When one with perceptions of higher dimension(s), he can see the back side of the circuit board, soul, spirit, ghost and etc, in addition to the front side of the circuit board.
Actually, string theory suggests that particles/materials of unknown type may exist in other dimension, or even cross-dimension. Only what we considered as "physical materials" in our own realm cant penetrate to a higher dimension.
The spirit is a clone/mirror image of us which will depart and go off our bodies when we die. There are more to say...well is it enough for you guys to chew.
It's a guess/made-up, so dont ask me for supportive evidence.
This message has been edited by Hawkins, 10-23-2005 10:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by bobbins, posted 10-23-2005 9:42 PM bobbins has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 76 (254504)
10-24-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by crashfrog
10-22-2005 6:30 PM


Identical atoms, in identical points in space, with identical energy levels, in identical interactions, with identical histories?
Well, they couldn't have identical histories, then they'd be the same atoms. I'll was talking about different atoms but the same type. But this and my response to the computer is getting off topic so lets drop it.
So, back one more step? Now the mind is not the interface; the mind has the interface. So, now, instead of just the physical body that everyone agrees is present, we have:
The body
The mind, which we don't know exists
The mind's spiritual interface, which we don't know exists
The soul, which we don't know exists
At every point, it's just one more retreat from you, a retreat into more invented entities. Where does it stop?
It stops where I first started. Body, mind and soul. Three things, thats it. I suggest that the mind, like the body, has multiple components with one of these components being a 'spiritual interface'.
The mind, which we don't know exists
Well, you could say that we don't know that anything exists.
If the mind is physical, the soul cannot affect it. If the mind is not physical then it cannot affect the body.
Its just a difference of opinion. I think the mind can do both, because, like I said earlier, the brain can create things that aren't physical, an idea was my example. You just don't agree with me that an idea is not a physical thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 10-22-2005 6:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2005 12:53 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 76 (254507)
10-24-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by mikehager
10-21-2005 11:15 PM


Re: Theistic arrogance.
Any person making the claim that I must think, feel or believe as the do is arrogant
Any claim carries with it the implication that the claimer is right and whoever disagrees with him is wrong. This is not arrogance. It's the nature of a claim.
If I make the claim, "Everyone has secret fears," I am saying that you have secret fears just like me. I don't see the difference between saying this and saying that everyone feels God. I mean the difference as far as the issue of arrogance.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-24-2005 03:50 PM

"Turning out pigs for creationists makes me blue and blurry."--Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by mikehager, posted 10-21-2005 11:15 PM mikehager has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by robinrohan, posted 10-24-2005 5:58 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 76 (254525)
10-24-2005 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by robinrohan
10-24-2005 4:50 PM


Re: Theistic arrogance.
I'm going to start a new topic on this issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by robinrohan, posted 10-24-2005 4:50 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 76 (254530)
10-24-2005 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
10-23-2005 2:26 PM


Look up the story of Phineas Gage sometime.
I did, I don't see what it has to do with the soul.
2) Didn't you say that the mind was the go-between for the soul and the brain?
If you agree that the mind is produced by the brain, I don't understand how the soul fits in.
I think that the mind is a product of the brain that is capable of interacting with the soul. I think the brain is capable of producing things that are non-physical, an idea was my earlier example. I also think that the mind, itself, is not a physical thing, it is a non-physical thing produced by the brain.
For example, if someone has a stroke and loses some impulse control and begins displaying a lot of inappropriate, violent behavior, where does the soul comne into the picture?
It doesn't.
Has the part of the soul that interacts with the brain and mind get damaged, too?
I would say no. I don't think the soul would be able to be damaged, physically. I don't think the soul has a physical component, it interacts with a non-physical mind that is physically produced by the brain.
So I guess the question is how the brain physically produces something that isn't physical. I don't know how. I don't really know how a thought is produced other that some neuron firing, but I don't consider a thought to be a physical thing even thought the brain produces them from nuerons (physical things).
If the brain gets damaged and losses some function of the mind that was capable of interacting with the soul, then while the soul would remain undamaged, I guess it would lose its contact with its physical body. Not something I've really considered before, thanks for bringing it up and please ask some more questions so I'll be forced to do more thinking.
Mark24 writes:
Isn't this a little pointless...
boobins writes:
The thread lost any point when the definition of 'soul' was ommitted...
I like thinking about this stuff even if it pointless, scientifically. You've brought up some aspect of my model that I haven't really considered yet and I consider this progress. I mean, I don't think I'm wasting time and I don't think that this is pointless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 10-23-2005 2:26 PM nator has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 76 (254550)
10-24-2005 7:43 PM


Inside
Human beings have souls.
A part of oneself, something beyond body and mind, something that divides human from non-human. That gives significance to humans over the animalistic wisdoms of earthly plights, and science. Something that ensures that when we die, we do not die to rot, as dust, as part of an earth that did not love us. We instead rise above our physical selves to meet out creator. The beauty within the idea of a soul exists in our day to day lives and struggles, our death is not in vain. Is not a worthless compilation of studies, and data, our death does not signify a loss, but a gain of something that the human mind can barely understand, and resists knowing of. The soul resides over the mind, resides over the body, what is rational, what is scientific, what makes sense, what satisfies, what gives meaning to worldly endeavors, it doesn't matter, when one dies these things are simply memories, and are forgotten even on earth. One who implies that there is nothing outside of a 6 foot deep hole shows no passion for life, and no knowledge of death. To make meaning of life one must understand that this world is a temporal one. Meaningful to one's path and journey, meaningful to all. The world serves also as almost a trap, one can get tied down to celebrity glory, immediate gratification, and samsara. If one believes in the existance of a soul, how was the soul made, did the soul evolve? Do other organisms possess the entity known as the soul?
Does the process of evolution play a role in the afterlife? Is there an afterlife? I would believe so. Any of life's meaning, on our journey for the length of our lives would not matter if not for the idea of an afterlife, of a Heaven. The unfortunate souls that are known as "have-nots" deserve this, for being born into a society of maybe hunger, oppression, and then to die, to die and be buried if lucky? What kind of life is that? Is there any love in the thought of nothing after death?
The existance of a soul in this pretext means the part of one that goes on to an afterlife. Afterlife needs souls. Who is to say there is nothing beyond a life on Earth? Who is to say that meaning exists only in data, and understanding of this physical realm, we know as the world?
Please bury me with it -Modest Mouse
This message has been edited by prophex, 10-24-2005 07:46 PM

The ocean breathes salty, won't you carry it in?
In your head, in your mouth, in your soul.
And maybe we'll get lucky and we'll both grow old.
Well I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I hope so.

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by robinrohan, posted 10-24-2005 7:55 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2005 8:01 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 73 by Phat, posted 10-29-2005 1:41 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 76 (254555)
10-24-2005 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by joshua221
10-24-2005 7:43 PM


Re: Inside
The unfortunate souls that are known as "have-nots" deserve this, for being born into a society of maybe hunger, oppression, and then to die, to die and be buried if lucky? What kind of life is that? Is there any love in the thought of nothing after death?
The sentiment expressed here is very fine. You are right, Prophex. They do deserve it.
Overall, Prophex, your philosophy is beautiful. There's only one problem with it: It's unbelievable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by joshua221, posted 10-24-2005 7:43 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 76 (254560)
10-24-2005 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by joshua221
10-24-2005 7:43 PM


Re: Inside
If one believes in the existance of a soul, how was the soul made, did the soul evolve?
Adam and Eve got souls when they ate the fruit. I have no idea how a sould is made. I don't think the souls evolved in a sense that our souls are somehow different than the souls of those 1000 years ago.
The soul resides over the mind, resides over the body,
I think the body and mind reside over the soul. I mean, its the choices the body makes that determines the outcome of the soul.
To make meaning of life one must understand that this world is a temporal one.
Maybe for you but you cannot claim this of everyone.
Is there an afterlife? I would believe so.
A more important question is, not whether the afterlife actually exists, but whether or not this life has any affect on our afterlife. If the afterlife exists but is unnaffected by this one, how would that affect your view? If there is no afterlife it will be of no consequence.
Do other organisms possess the entity known as the soul?
On earth no, humans only.
Who is to say there is nothing beyond a life on Earth? Who is to say that meaning exists only in data, and understanding of this physical realm, we know as the world?
It is important for scientific progress for these things to occur.
The unfortunate souls that are known as "have-nots" deserve this, for being born into a society of maybe hunger, oppression, and then to die, to die and be buried if lucky? What kind of life is that?
Well hopefully we can make enough scientific progress to end this stuff, but taking the attitude you have in the previous quote is not gonna help anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by joshua221, posted 10-24-2005 7:43 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 71 of 76 (255480)
10-29-2005 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Ben!
10-22-2005 12:49 PM


Bump for crash
Wondering if you have any interest in this paper. I think it would be useful in discussing what types of models are being made of consciousness, what kind of data is out there, and what types of questions are being answered in the field.
Like I said, I'd be very interested in getting your viewpoint on the paper. But I know you're a busy amphibian.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Ben!, posted 10-22-2005 12:49 PM Ben! has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 72 of 76 (255484)
10-29-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by New Cat's Eye
10-24-2005 4:32 PM


Well, they couldn't have identical histories, then they'd be the same atoms.
Yes, exactly. All we are is atoms, and that's all we have to be.
Three things, thats it. I suggest that the mind, like the body, has multiple components with one of these components being a 'spiritual interface'.
So, more than three things. And almost every one an invention on your part.
Well, you could say that we don't know that anything exists.
Right. Best, then, to stick with the stuff that we can reasonably conclude, from some evidence, is real - the body, the brain, the physical.
You just don't agree with me that an idea is not a physical thing.
I don't agree that an arrangement is a "thing", no. Things are things; the way that they're arranged exists only in our minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2005 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 73 of 76 (255490)
10-29-2005 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by joshua221
10-24-2005 7:43 PM


Believable philosophy
Prophex writes:
Any of life's meaning, on our journey for the length of our lives would not matter if not for the idea of an afterlife, of a Heaven. The unfortunate souls that are known as "have-nots" deserve this, for being born into a society of maybe hunger, oppression, and then to die, to die and be buried if lucky? What kind of life is that? Is there any love in the thought of nothing after death?
RobinRohan writes:
Overall, Prophex, your philosophy is beautiful. There's only one problem with it: It's unbelievable.
There is one person that I know of, alive today, who shares Prophex's "unbelievable philosophy"....
Jesus Christ,in NIV writes:
Matt 5:3-12 "Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Charlie...it IS believable.
This message has been edited by Phat, 10-29-2005 11:42 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by joshua221, posted 10-24-2005 7:43 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 74 of 76 (255822)
10-31-2005 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by joshua221
10-21-2005 4:53 PM


in the begining of the end of my ability to think...
There was this quote,
quote:
We say of nature and its faculty in organized products far too little if we describe it as an analogon of art, for this suggests an artificer ( a rational being) external to it. Much rather does it organize itself and its organized products in every species, no doubt afer one general pattern but yet with suitable deviations, which self-preservation demands according to circumstances. We perhaps approach nearer to this inscrutable property if we describe it as an analogon of life, but the we must either endow matter, as mere matter, with a property which contradicts its very being (hylosoism) or associate therewith an alien principle standing in communion with it ( a soul). But in the latter case we must, if such a product is to be a natural product, either presuppose organized matter as the instrument of that soul, which does not make the soul a whit more comprehensible, or regard the soul as artificer of this structure, and so remove the product fro (corporeal) nature. To speak strictly, then, the organization of nature has in it nothing analogous to any causality we know.^4 4="We can conversely throw light upon a certain combination , much more often met with in idea than in actuality , by means of an analogy to the so-called immediate natural purposes. In a recent complete transformation of a great people into a state the word organization for the regulation of magistracies, etc., and even of the whole body politic, has ofgern been fitly used. For in such a whole every member should surely be purpose as well as means, and , while all work togehter twoard the possibility of the whole, each should be determined as regards place and function by means of the Idea of the whole{ed note: Kant probably alludes here to the organizaiton of the United States of America}
p 221 in the Analytic of the Teleolgical Judgement By Kant.
I will be taking footnote 4 as my target. In the end I will develop personally the difference that before 1990 "causality" is nothing we could have known as suggested IN ANY WAY by Kant but that Kant can be corrected with developments since then, provided, one is clear what the(a) "product" is. I will in this writing process move the notion of Kantian "ordinances" into the fundamental difference of ordinal and cardinal numbers so instructing the application of ordertypes while the production can NEVER remove the product from the corporeal "nature". I (will)rehabilitate natural theology in the process and repudiate much anti-ID work that simply confuses a noncoreporeal eduction with any prior deduction(still the IDer must give the distribution if the charge of "a rational being" is to be voided and avoided. That is if any one can follow me blue in blurriness and as raw as I come. If evos are only not a whit more whitty than being silent by the lack of making the soul a whit more comprehensible they lose. If the children generate self-reflexive fractal strcutures that can be in communion between an analogon of death and the pedagogical majority, the parents will have been found to no longer toe the former line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by joshua221, posted 10-21-2005 4:53 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by joshua221, posted 10-31-2005 7:52 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 76 (255892)
10-31-2005 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Brad McFall
10-31-2005 3:29 PM


Re: in the begining of the end of my ability to think...
You deserve a college for only you to teach to hundreds, no joke.

The ocean breathes salty, won't you carry it in?
In your head, in your mouth, in your soul.
And maybe we'll get lucky and we'll both grow old.
Well I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I hope so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Brad McFall, posted 10-31-2005 3:29 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024