So one needs to be a mystic, or a sage, to be able to help? What is it they do that you can't? My issue here is that you say lots but then seem to refuse to back up anything you say, yet seem to want us to accept that it is more than just wishful thinking, more than just belief, that there is actually something to it. If you can't support what you say, not necessarily with evidence but at least with rationale, then there is nothing but belief. And if that is all it is, why is it there?
One could put it this way. If you've ever been hurt, you will be familiar with the concept of a soul. Now, if the rational brain were all that's required for well-being, why is it you can still rationalize but feel differently. Were your neurons physically damaged? Think of emotional hurt as a tear in a fabric and you need to mend that, otherwise you would be unbalanced as well as disordered/disconnected. This invisible array is as real as your original whole self, then what changed if its not real? It's like an engine, all the parts are required and need to be in working order and especially optimally. Now, you could think of it as a completely mental phenomenon, whereby your interaction with another is positive, neutral or negative. Disagreements dont necessarily impinge on anyone but depending on the ethics of who you interact with, they can throw a monkey wrench in your system or re-arrange it, for better or worse. The problem is this process can happen with no visible mental interaction. For instance, just being around someone who is negative emotionally can end up affecting you, just like positivity can. This is simply on an energetic level. This indicates we are more than our conscious abstract thoughts. We absorb much more than what we consciously realize or control. We are a sum of the parts, not just the parts. This sum is a fluid holistic signature that we cant see as our eyes are outside peering at the physical world, no? Our inner world can only be sensed intuitively. We know or can feel when something is off as well as try to correct it with our conscious thoughts. Interestingly, it cant always restore you completely. There is more than a mental exchange with those in your environment, especially those you physically interact with. You are not just your abstract thoughts. They are merely tools and a road map. Imagine total chaos if the solar system were to fall out of alignment. Lmao.
Given the absence of evidence for the alternative, it seems the most parsimonious of conclusions. If you want to claim that consciousness survives the brain dying, please put forth the support for that claim. You confuse those who "believe not" with those who simply do not believe. If you think I am claiming that souls do not exist then you are in error. But if you wish to claim the existence of something then the onus is on you to support that claim. It is simply a trait developed through evolution: the species that sought to survive over others, in an environment of competition for resources, would have better success at passing on their genes, whether that was their intention or not. Thus you get the evolutionary trait of survival. A natural product of the life/death cycle in an environment of limited resources. You asked a question, yes, and I answered, and then explained why, even though it could be, it is not the position I find to be rational. Do you have an issue with me adding such an explanation? Claims such as? No, it really doesn't imply that at all. You don't understand the word to imply that, so why do you assume that everyone else would think it does? A touch disingenuous, don't you think? I look forward to it. There is plenty: The lack of evidence for a soul outside of a corporeal body. The termination of life-functions when the brain dies. The ability to cause unconsciousness within a person by interrupting their brain activity. Of course these aren't proof, but they are evidence. Couple them with Occam's razor and hey presto, the most rational conclusion to accept in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It is not that one therefore believes that it is true, only accepts it from a rational practical point of view.
I have been hurt. I was familiar with the concept of a soul prior to then, but being hurt has not altered anything. I am unsure how being hurt could shed light on the issue? Different chemicals, different sensations, different areas of the brain firing. It is how pain inhibitors are able to work, by suppressing chemical flow. Are you positing the soul as some non-material something or other, that lives on after death, or simply positing that there are, say, some emergent properties of our brain that appear to work above the physical level but are, nonetheless, tied to and part of that physical realm? Or something else? And what has this to do with a soul? I'm not saying it doesn't, but I can't work out the intended point. Sorry. I'm sure this also meant something to you, but I am missing your point. Care to elaborate?
Everything is material even without our conscious brains. There is no proof of a soul but there is also no proof that the properties which make up the concept of a soul cant exist without our physical bodies. That's pretty easy to say but consider that we dont experience it as chemicals. These constituent parts are synthesizing to create an effect called emotions. What for? If we can still use mind over matter, why is our state of emotional well-being and soul ( ineffable essence of life) so important? We tend to think we are the progenitors of consciousness, that it can't exist outside of us. Perhaps consciousness always existed and we are it's mirror formed from this decaying clay and always trying to maintain it's upkeep: this fragment of soul with it's own consciousness. We do this by continually seeking/expanding knowledge. That knowledge already exists but the less we are connected, the more pain and disconnected we sense we are. That desire to be 'plugged in'.
Dazzle you with mystical words which sound sort of scientifical althorative deep and profound Reinforce your delusion about a soul Let you think you are one of the few who "understands" Frequently lightens your wallet Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What would those properties be called as a matter of interest? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How the hell would i know? Do you? Do you also know there is no soul? Can anyone answer this question emphatically? 21 grams? No. I dont believe in a creator as in a god. Any entity is a byproduct. Even a greater one is still the created. I think consciousness just is, totally liberal and can take any form. Consider all the different types of people and their consciousness. We are reflections of how consciousness can take form and wholly uniquely shaped by our experiences. But its telling we are striving or seeking perfection and not perfection of any being, but pure and utter perfection itself, free from any lies or confusion. But i also dont think we are the only definition of or possible manifestation of consciousness either. Thats very arrogant and presumptuous. We exist on this physical plane and that is the vehicle in how we experience consciousness. We know nothing else either way. This is completely from my intuition and nothing else. But sometimes your intuition can be your wisest voice when it comes to the unseen or yet unknown.
That depends who you ask. A theist may have a different perception. What is the difference? If you think you can hide behind titles. you're in error. That's fair enough. If you wish to claim that consciousness ceases upon death of the body, then the onus is on you to support that claim. That's not really an explanation, but I will match your level of explanations. Start by answering questions I pose. Just to be sure, are you claiming this as evidence? So because one cannot see the soul, it is evidence that it does not exist? If that;s NOT what you're saying, feel free to elaborate. Here goes with the ad hominems! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal. What is the evidence comprised of? How is this evidence that consciousness ceases to be? Because we can't see the soul? Things do exist that we are unable to see. Did you know that? If someone interrupts the writing of this response by shooting my computer, point blank, several times, into a smoldering heap, the activety will stop, That is all you're explaining. Care to try another one? What are these evidences comprised of? ''I cannot see the soul, therefore the soul does not exist? Whatever floats your boat, I guess. You're basically saying nothing about the issue. Because you can't see the soul it does not follow that it doesn't exist, or unlikely to exist. Show some real evidence before you invoke Occam's Razor. I don't agree that it is rational, as no evidence has come to light, What you provide as evidence boils down to your view (''Ican't see the soul, therefore the soul does not exist''), which is not evidence. jan,
Well call me old fashioned but since you alluded to the properties which make up the concept of a soul you may have some idea of the names of those properties If I was to try and explain to somebody this beautiful cup cake I know about all would go well until they ask what's the name of the ingredients and I replied No hence my question Most of the above is the equivalent of the challenge out by thesist to athesist and I would be certain you know what a dead end path that is 21 gram crappy movie and from what I recall about the few experiments performed very dodgy meaningless results The rest of the post is to mystical to make meaningful comments about Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Heh! What would that prove? That the cup cake doesn't exist? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! From my understanding of scriptures that explain what the soul is, the soul is spiritual by nature (as opposed to material), and it's symptom is consciousness. You didn't answer his question (''Do you also know there is no soul?''), how rude. jan.
Nice story. Here is the question again. Perhaps you misunderstood it. ''Where, or what, is the evidence that the desire NOT to die, is natural, as opposed to preferable (in some circumstances)? I assume this particular desire has it's basis in nature, and it's laws.'' Now even if you're story was true, it doesn't explain how it is natural, distinct from preference. In another thread you make the claim that consciousness is produced by the brain. The thing is, neuroscience only hypothesises this, so how have you come to your conclusion? From the thread; David Icke... jan.
There's would not seem to satisfy Occam's razor. If I say I am not eating an apple, does that mean I am eating something that is not an apple? Could I perhaps simply not be eating anything? What titles? Who has mentioned any? If you feel that simply ensuring you don't hold an incorrect view is to hide behind titles, then we have a language issue. I claim that it appears to, that it seems to, that that is the most parsimonious of conclusions to reach. I have provided the supporting evidence for that within my previous post. Why do you not think it really an explanation? I am asking you for clarification, to point out the claims you are referring to. Evidence, yes, but not proof. It is evidence, yes, but not proof. Do you know the difference between evidence and proof? I am simply pointing out that you should not assume of others what you do not assume yourself. Rather than assume that others have same understanding that you do, you made the gross generalisation that to others it implies something else. If you consider it an ad hominem to call you out for such a tactic, guilty as charged. And? Are you going to claim that because it is defined it therefore exists? Nothing. Quite literally, in fact. What is the evidence for the existence of a soul outside of a corporeal body? When all signs disappear, the rational conclusion is that it is no longer there. I do. It is how discoveries are made all the time. But I do not find it rational to believe something to exist when there is no evidence for it. So I don't. And we have evidence that you do not cease to exist when that activity is interrupted. Hence we don't assume that you do cease to exist. Care to provide the evidence that the soul still exists? Or should we start with the initial assumption that the soul exists, and being immortal will just carry on, therefore survives after death. I.e. Should we simply assume that which we look to support? Please do not misrepresent my view. Where have I said that I believe the soul to not exist? Or is this where you accuse me of hiding behind titles? Indeed. Again, I haven't claimed that it doesn't exist. One can also not show evidence of absence. The absence is the evidence that alternative theories, not requiring that which suffers from evidentiary absenteeism, are to be preferred (Occam's razor). This is not proof that it is correct, only that it is rational position to take, absent any other assumptions. Evidence of what? Are you still suffering the misapprehension that I am claiming the soul does not exist? Oh, wait, there I go again, hiding behind titles. How foolish of me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You don't see preference as natural? How are you making the distinction? When is preference not natural, for example? Survival is an instinct, a trait given rise through evolution. Humans are capable of overriding that instinct, sure, but it is there nonetheless. Do you not agree that survival is an instinct of almost all animals? If not, why not? I would have thought it an uncontentious issue, but it seems not. I find it the most rational position, because it has no need to posit any unevidenced Unknown variable. I will always find these theories more rational than those that require the existence of something not yet witnessed. That is not to say that it is necessarily correct, though, and I accept that within my practical view.
Neither would yours, by the same token. If you say ''I am not eating an apple'', then it means you are not eating an apple. It seems you are attempting to come across as agnostic, while at the same time trying to sneak in the idea that the soul does not exist. How does it appear to be so? All you see is the death of the physical body. How can you draw the conclusion that there is no soul, unless you base your conclusion upon what you can see? Look in my first couple of responses to you, and simply answer the questions posed. Does a soul exist after the death of the body? No. Why? Because no one has ever seen one. Like I said, there are things that exist, that we can't see. Then show the facts, and or, information, which form the truth, or validity of your claims, independantly of your own personal point of view. How do you know others don't assume it? Initially upon hearing it (especially in the context it is commonly used), I assume it, albeit for a second or so, then I realise what is being said. Obviously. I'm giving you a basic definition. What does the evidence that it does not exist outside the coporeal body, comprise of? I'm guessing it is ''I can't see a soul, therefore the soul does not exist''. Can you prove my guess wrong? Given the definition of ''soul'', what would you regard as evidence. I ask this, because it seems that you're only using evidence as a lway of stopping yourself from gaining a better understing of what is termed the 'soul'. A kind of self-defeating mechanism. So it is due to sight! I thought so. So because we cannot see the soul, it does not exist. Again that is what you're saying boils down to. No. What other conclusion is there? How is it that Occam's Razor only applies to the notion of a soul? Why doesn't it apply to the personal views you presented as evidence? Why do you believe your position to be rational? jan.
I see "preference" as a symptom of conscious behaviour, and I see no reason to blindly accept consciousness as a part of natural laws. I'm pretty sure if it was, scientists would have figured it out by now. As it happens, they still have no idea as to what it is, or where it originates, other than in living beings. Yes. I agree that instincts occur whether we volunteer or not. Desire on the otherhand, is voluntary, unless we lose control, and become addicted to what it is we originally desired. If you have an opinion on it, then you, by the nature of the subject matter, posit unevidenced, unknown variables. You only believe it is a rational position, compared to mine, because that is your personal view. Otherwise please explain how your view is rational, and mine presumably not. What have you witnessed? We're not talking about what is correct. I accept that you are correct as far as you're aware. I can see how you could arrive at your conclusions. I just don't agree that your conclusion can be reached without limiting your awareness to the power of your sight. Jan.
Not true. When one is confronted with components X and their apparent effect Y, it is more parsimonious to conclude that X produces Y through an as yet unknown process than it is to assume that there is some other unevidenced component Z that is missing that is required for effect Y. But does it mean that I am eating something else that is not an apple? If I say that I do not believe the soul to exist, does that mean that mean that I believe the soul to not exist? Or could it mean that that I simply don't have belief one way or the other? I am not attempting anything. And I am not sneaking in that idea. You are simply taking the defensive posture and assuming that "not believing" is the same as "believing not". Appearance is a matter of sensory evidence. If there is no sensory evidence of something, why should I accept or believe that it is so? The sensory evidence is that the body has died, and with that all evidence of consciousness, of a soul. Parsimony would suggest that one gave rise to the other. Not until you provide the clarification requested. The ball is in your court on this matter, Jan. If that was my argument you would have a point. But it isn't, so you don't. Such as? And even if there are some things that exist that we can't see, how does that hold that everything that is claimed to exist that can't be seen does actually exist? All you're doing by saying that it can't be seen is excusing yourself from providing evidence, not from actually providing anything in support of the argument that the soul exists. It is a fact that when the body dies, there is no longer any sign of consciousness. I would think this incontrovertible, but if you wish to a provide counter, feel free. I don't know that others don't assume it. The point is that you don't know that they do assume it, yet you made the generalisation. Given that the vast majority of the population is religious, it is reasonable to assume that many have a reasonable understanding of the term. That would be the evidence plus a conclusion, albeit an irrational one, and not the one I adhere to. First show me, through argument or otherwise, that there is something to be defeated about. The onus is on you, who claims the soul to exist. If you can not provide physical evidence then at least provide a coherent argument for its existence, for its necessity, that is not reliant upon circularity of argument. Not just sight but any sense. But given that the term "appear" has been used before, I am surprised that you seem to be excited about me using the term "disappear". If that is what all you can garner from what has been said then you are too blinkered, too intent on your own agenda here, and I think we are done. There is only so much time I have for someone who simply refuses to listen to what the other says. That it may exist, or it may not, but that it has not been demonstrated one way or the other, either through argument or evidentiary proof. Occams razor can be applied whenever looking at competing theories. It does apply to my personal views, and I have explained why Occam's razor would favour the "no soul" theory. But Occam's razor is not an arbiter of truth, but can be used to help one identify the more rational approach for them. Because it does not require the assumption of something that has as yet been unevidenced, or for which there is no logical argument for the acceptance of that assumption.
So an argument from personal incredulity and ignorance. Okay. So given that you think survival is an instinct, do you not see instinct as the natural tendency? Do you even see evolution as natural? Not if my opinion is that its reality is unknown. Well, I do like to only hold rational views. It is a matter of whether it is my personal view because it is rational, or whether I consider it rational because it is my personal view. If the latter then I would be presumably be rationalising all manner of bizarre views, such as the moon being made of cheese. If the former, however, then my views are formed by what I already understand to be rational. So by default all my views would (hopefully) be rational. Amazingly, you can say exactly the same thing. The thing is, we clearly seem to have very different fundamental processes for determining what is rational, such that you may find rational what I do not, and vice verse. One of those differences is your a priori assumption that God exists, that souls exist etc. You may not accept that it is a priori, but while it may indeed not be a fundamental unalterable view you have, it is certainly a priori to all your discussions here. In the ongoing absence of success I don't assume the need for something additional that is otherwise unevidenced when it may simply be a lack of understanding of what is evidenced. I favour "I don't know" as being more rational than "it's something the existence for which I have no evidence or no logical argument to support" Plenty. But it's not what I have witnessed but what simply has not been witnessed at all. You yourself have provided a definition of the soul that puts it beyond being witnessed outside of the corporeal body. So unless you are claiming the real existence of something simply because it has been defined, what else is there? Feel free to explain how awareness can be extended beyond the senses and beyond the intellect. Plus it is not a matter of being "correct as far as you're aware". I don't know if my practical view is correct or not. It certainly suffices from a practical point of view but that is irrelevant to the actual correctness or not. Yet you seem to want to put view into black and white, and claim you can see how someone may see it as black instead of white. I'm saying I don't see it at all. I can not be correct about that which I am agnostic about. So please don't insist on seeing my view as seeing black just because I don't see the white that you do. It is tedious.
It is, if you assume that consciousness comes from the brain, and the only reason for this assumption is due to the fact that you cannot see the soul. I told you what my response would be. Unless you think my response is somehow mistaken, let's move on. Then please explain how your line of enquiry, in particular your demand of evidence for the existence of the soul, is relevant to this thread? I'm sure there has been discussions on Multiverses, where nobody saw the need to ask for evidence of such phenomena. Especially as the thread does not posit the actual existence of a soul. What is your problem? That's fair enough. But why are you in this thread asking for evidence of something nobody has claimed to actually exist, as though you have a default, rational position. This thread asks, what the properties of the soul are. It does not assume that the soul actually exists, or not. From your perspective, you could still join in, without having to believe it exists. Just like we can discuss the Multiverses concept without having to believe. No it doesn't. That is non thinking, because you don't have to think, at all, to come that conclusion. The soul, by definition, cannot be seen. Period. So looking for it would be silly. Claiming that it cannot be seen, therefore doesn't exist, is silly, or a convenient mechanism to ignore it. You seem to be displaying the latter. I have never claimed that the soul exists, on this site. I always take the positive stance. Apart from that, no one here has claimed that soul exists. They claim belief that soul exists. And they talk about the properties of the soul, they most probably do so based on literature. Why do I need to? If believe that I am a essentially a spiritual being, why should I have to justify it? I don't see you justifying your non thinking position, other than reiterating a basic experience we all know. We can see that the Emporer isn't wearing any clothes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your position requires nothing, other than to know that death is the end of that living being. Jan.
There is no proof of a soul end of story It's a made up concept It's akin to life force with was a more modern version popular for a short time The closest I come to understanding what is being considered as a soul is as mentioned concessness However concessness is a PROCESS not a COMPONENT of the body which has for weird wishful thinking reasons survives death and moves onto (into?) a afterlife The picture in my mind consists of a pale whispy vaguely human shape floating around and only composed of thought The soul is a non existent concept which seeks to ascribe physicality to a process. Like saying the process of cooking is the soul of a oven and when the oven is broken beyond repair it has lost its soul There is no such animal As mentioned in another post in more than 40 years of medical involvment with people I have never treated a soul along with so many co workers Once the brain stops working your dead and as mentioned have no ability to react to surrounding conditions Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
