You don't know what a "spirit" is. It is nothing. It is like the soul. Another word for the mind. Really? I've never seen that definition for the mind before - did you just make it up?
Your personality, your thoughts. The ideas in your head, logic and mathematics, all immaterial, all affect us in huge ways on a daily basis. I'm afraid you find yourself without reasonable argument.
You misunderstood nothing. Nothing: a nonexistent thing. Isn't that a correct definition? Do you have another?
we are in the process of refutation first things first though, eh? since boris' argument is based on a presentation of the soul which is so vague it could not possibly stand up to any argument, i think that this is a better place than any to start, what says you? no! i am saying if i had to say what my soul is i would say me. that which i interact with is not me, as it expresses itself to me. you may call that supernatural, i do not. it is not me, not mysoul. one can assume all manner of things. why do you think god lives up in the sky? why do you think i pray? how do you interact with your world? many, many different ways i Assume? this is how interact with my world too. how do you know what other theists are doing are you having supernatural interactions with them that inform you of their behaviour, or are you just assuming this also?
You are merely quoting abstract concepts, none of which interact with us at all. You don't interact with "maths". You DO interact with the visual stimuli of the lines, drawings etc on the paper, crunch away in your head (all of which is a physical process), and arrive at an answer that you then physically visualise and probably store to memory, and probably write down. The same with logic. It is a tool - a concept. We do not "interact" with it in any way. These two words are merely abstract concepts to describe the physical thought process that goes on in the brain to arrive at the right answer. We are taught that 1+1=2. We see the physical stimuli of the letters either on the paper, the board etc. We get the physical stimuli of the teacher telling us etc. So, in simple terms, our brain builds a physical connection in the brain such that when we see 1+1 again we know that the answer is 2. "Maths" is an abstract concept - but at no point do we interact with it. "Personality" is immaterial - but it is also not something that interacts. Personality is nothing more than a concept. It is the way, peculiar to each individual, in which our brain crunches all the inputs to achieve the outputs. The inputs are physical. The outputs are physical. The processing is physical. It is this processing, peculiar to each of us, that is our personality. There is no interaction with the immaterial at any point. The fact that everyone processes the same inputs to achieve different outputs is what gives us our unique personality - but it is not something that interacts. If you disagree with any of this, please detail to me exactly how it is that you interact with logic, with mathematics, with personality, with any of your examples.
boris' argument is based on a presentation of the soul which is so vague it could not possibly stand up to any argument, i think that this is a better place than any to start, what says you? Boris' presentation is fine in regards to his argument. For the time being, let's work with it as if it were hypothetical, can you manage that? no! i am saying if i had to say what my soul is i would say me. that which i interact with is not me, as it expresses itself to me. you may call that supernatural, i do not. it is not me, not mysoul. If it is not supernatural, then it must be natural and confined to the laws of the physical world. That is very much the crux of the argument. Like all theists, they have their own interpretation of god, so it would stand to reason they have their own interpretation of the soul, as you do. But like I said, lets work with what is there. You can always start a thread defining your interpretation of the soul and work with that. Fair enough? why do you think god lives up in the sky? why do you think i pray? I don't know where god lives and I don't know why you pray, I'm just using that as an example. how do you interact with your world? many, many different ways i Assume? this is how interact with my world too. I interact with the physical world with my physical body, just like everyone else. Can you show that your world includes the supernatural and how you interact with it? how do you know what other theists are doing are you having supernatural interactions with them that inform you of their behaviour, or are you just assuming this also? I'm going by the evidence presented here. Do you see any theists attempting refutation of boris' post?
You miss the point, I fear. Boris' argument is based on the assumption, held by many (so he thinks), that the soul is immaterial. It is THIS ASSUMPTION ALONE, regardless of anything else, on which he argues. So you should either refute this assumption, or refute his arguments based upon this assumption. You can not refute his arguments by saying "Well, he hasn't defined the soul in sufficient detail" as his case against it relies solely on the assumption that the soul is immaterial. Either argue against the assumption, argue against his points based on the assumption, or agree with him. Are there other options?
Nothing: a nonexistent thing. Isn't that a correct definition? Do you have another? Only nothingness is, only nothingness can be. "Nothing exists"
look at those two words sarkus "immaterial" and "item" an item is an object like a frying pan, the immaterial is a purpose, a motive, a principle, an idea, anything not perceivable to the senses but experiential to the psyche, or simply non-existent. such as the stimulative driver of your thought train. the immaterial does not exist as a physically apprehendable object, it is something other than sensually perceptable. you cannot therfore demonstrate to the sense an immaterial item
Q you need to drop this perception of me as some stereotyped hard on for jesus dude. it is not what i am, and you are eroding my respect for you with these assumptions.
is consciousness material in the sense that boris speaks of? but i also think it is very relevant to have true and accurate definition of what it is that boris understands to be the soul, and this does seem to be in dispute. but this is my point if it is not material what is it? has boris given this enough consideration to present a solid argument, if he has why does he not present a more substantial defintion? if he has not why are you even considering it as a valid position form which to argue? does he then know what it does? no! does he know how it functions? no! does he know anything else at all about it? no, i dont think he does. but this is only because he cannot identify the illusive defined entity in which case the guy is a fucking genius right? wrong! yes i know this. but he is missing something rather large right from the start. fact. i dont think an assumption is th best place to begin a serious argument. i dont do evidence very well i spent too much of my youth trying to conceal it. i do have picture of me that clearly shows my soul but i dont think you would recognize it as such without your spiritual vision goggles on, and these can only be aquired with lifetime subscription to the happy clappy sunday club. i agree that boris holds this percpetion of the soul, and i understand how he could come to this perception but i dont think boris has given the soul much thought. i think it is a word that people use to describe a certain experience of themselves, some people are clear about what they are describing with that word and you can discuss things with them using that word, and we will understand each other. then there are people who use that word in different context all together and they can be quite confusing to talk to about such things. it is just a word it is not a physical item that i can love or loathe, it is an imatterial word describing immaterial expriences or it is not. it is a measurable and calculable vehicle of information of a measurable and calculable item, or it is not.
what is it about boris's post that you want me to refute? again i think this is your expectation that i will see a particular weakness with boris' post or your certainty that i wont see something wrong? what is wrong with fundamental flaws in his basis for an argument as a starting point for refutation?
if it is as boris states immaterial and it is as boris states presumed to interact with the brain, then the first place we should start is what the fuck is it if not material? why not know what it is we are talking about? how it exists and in what state? this does not mean they have to conform our interpretation though. who are "they"? anyway i can work with personal interpretations but it is important they are recognised as such. i can work with what is there so long as there is a recognition that what is there is incomplete. i dont pray Q. why do you think i pray? why do you consider my world to be of a supernatural nature? my world is alive, that is all? i do not consider it is supernatural. okay, fair enough. it is a pretty tight argument if you overlook the fact that soul is misrepresented.
If there is no "immaterial" soul/life then there can be no choice, and every thought and action and emotion is a product of the first milliseconds of the big bang and the beginning of our universe. Why theists believe in a soul or being alive or the self -is that God has given us the ability to be greater than the mere sum of the atoms of our body - with out an "immaterial" component, then there is no possibility that anything as any effect to change what is - every thing is as it can only be. So no use spending time worry about- its just your predetermined fate to argue and worry about the soul. I pity you then, marked from the begging of time without hope or ability to effect any thing.
why not know what it is we are talking about? how it exists and in what state? Boris' post indicates that the soul cannot be material, in other words, not of nature, immaterial, nonexistent. He argues based on that. If one feels the soul is material and exists in nature, one can refute his post. this does not mean they have to conform our interpretation though. Your interpretation or theists in general? It is the theists version he argues, the supernatural. Why not argue your version? who are "they"? Theists, I already said that. anyway i can work with personal interpretations but it is important they are recognised as such. Excellent, argue your personal interpretation. That would be fine. i can work with what is there so long as there is a recognition that what is there is incomplete. Fill in what you feel is incomplete and argue that. why do you consider my world to be of a supernatural nature? my world is alive, that is all? i do not consider it is supernatural. The soul is considered the supernatural, in other words, not existing in nature, that is, unless one can show it does. okay, fair enough. it is a pretty tight argument if you overlook the fact that soul is misrepresented. It's a rock solid argument. But please, stand your interpretation of the soul up against his argument and see if it is valid. Represent yourself so that there is not misrepresentation in your mind. That is only fair and that is all anyone can ask. I will sit pleasantly by and say nothing unless you want me to - is it a deal?
