When do you get a soul? & related questions.

over 99% of anyone who is firmly fixed in material reductionism

such as?

If you think there is some element that death takes away that cannot be materially replicated you are subscribing to something else other than material reductionism

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On the contrary, if you think you can launch into an investigation of evidence by neglecting the standard means of doing so (never mind if we are discussing god or stamps of the early 19th century), it might pay to be a bit more introspective ......
:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

actually if you read my posts you will see that I only criticize it when it is wrongly applied.

If you are using post dated rain cheques and/or correlation = causation you are falsely borrowing from the authority of empiricism

If you can't agree that the standard epistemological model is theory->application->conclusion there's not much room for further discussion

:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your bullshit stinks.
Just answer the questions.
IF I read your posts. What the heck do you think I'm replying to.

Then why don't you stop posting?

 

The experts said she was brain dead. Her autonomic impulses were fine, so her body could continue her futile existence indefinitely (so long as her feeding tube was kept supplied).

 

If you read them I take it you missed the points about rain cheques and correlation = causation ...

I'm quite close to not replying to your posts, if that's what you mean ....

 

He enjoys playing the slippery eel. I sometimes wonder if he is some sort of sophisticated bot. You have to admit, if you were arguing with a bot, it would probably look a lot like this. I put him on ignore years ago, since his refusal to give a straight answer, or concede a point makes debate futile.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You miss the point thus causing you to think others miss what you think are points. You have no points. You can't make a point by stating a claim & refusing to support it yet obtusely obfuscating on&on&on&on&on&on.
What is the significant difference between not replying to me & 98% of your posts now. Most of your replies are not responses to what I stated or asked.

 

-=-

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/Upload/Attention/Attention-Whore_Beach.jpg

Actually, he has reminded me of that Python skit.

 

on the contrary, if you think a claim can be evidenced while bypassing prerequisites of application, it appears you have a wider issue with epistemology .... as a opposed to any specific gripes about theism, religion, god etc

:shrug:

 

Why do you think material replication is a requirement of either materialism or reductionism?

 

Lg,

We may well have a difference in terminology here.

I define consciousness as specifically being mentally aware in such a way that an entity can distinguish clearly between itself (the thing being aware) and all other things and events. This ability appears to have a direct correlation to brain complexity. Some degree of self-awareness has been noted in dolphins, apes, and even elephants. We should also note that a new born child does not possess self-awareness for some time until its brain has sufficiently developed.

I also clearly distinguish between biological life and consciousness. Bio-life can exist without consciousness, and is not dependent upon it. A plant for example is not aware of itself. A plant represents a system that reacts to its environment, much live waves in the ocean react to the motions of the moon and sun, or a hurricane can wreak devastation over populated areas. A hurricane has mass, motion, direction, and reacts to its changing environment (e.g. air pressure, temperature, etc). If we adopt your suggestion for self-awareness as per the plant and trees then we can see that a hurricane is even more advanced but contains no living cells. Does a hurricane posses a soul?

A plant is a system of cooperative sub-components (cells) that form an autonomic entity. Much like a new born child whose immature state can do little more than automatically react to its surroundings according to its hard-wired autonomic sub-systems. The child becomes self aware and develops consciousness as its brain grows but the plant has no such ability.

Even as self-aware humans much of our bodily functions are autonomic. For example you do not consciously direct your digestive system, or control how your liver and kidneys operate. These are subsystems that you depend upon, i.e. groups of specialist cooperative cells that fulfill specific functions. They are not in themselves self-aware or possess consciousness.

The example you give of trees reacting to an invader, etc, are again simple examples of evolved autonomic systems. No consciousness or self-awareness exists in these instances.

I continue to have no comprehension of what you propose a soul might be or what function it might perform based on these real-world observations and scientific studies.

I have equated consciousness here with self-awareness, i.e. self-awareness is the essential characteristic of consciousness that allows us to identify that consciousness exists. As we see with other higher animals, dolphins and apes, it is not a clear black and white boundary, there is some grayness to the transition point, and this correlates directly with brain complexity.

I see no case or justification for proposing that individual cells contain within themselves any degree of consciousness or are in anyway reliant on such a requirement. Neither do I see that you have made any cogent case for such a claim. We have only seen your assertions with no reasoned basis for support.

 

you do realize that such a definition is completely lodged within the parameters of soft science?

what you are doing here is bridging the gap between hard and soft science with speculation.

IOW the lack of a reductionist framework for defining "consciousness" stands distinct from the framework for explaining the relationship between the moon and the ocean etc.

Anyway, it might be easier if we just work with the terms "life" since "consciousness" (as you prefer to use the word) can be neither distinguished or similarly categorized with "autonomic body functions, etc" by the reductionist paradigm

In short, without a soul, you don't get life, nor any of the things attributed with it (such as consciousness)

the greyness is where soft science meets hard science

the evidence for even higher animals having consciousness is lodged in soft science, so one could equally hold that even the assertion that they possess it is unreasoned (from the eyes of die hard hard-science)

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

why would you think that an issue of replication is beyond the material reductionist paradigm (aside from the infamous "because we don't have the technology yet") ....... unless of course you are subscribing to something other than material reductionism

 

lg,

That's where I don't see any support, of any kind. A soul doesn't appear to provide any function. What does it do? And how do you know?

 

to which I will painfully remind you that there is no support for the claim that life is a materially reducible phenomena.

Even to assume that the claim of life being contingent on a soul is baseless (ie is a statement that cannot lay claim to a methodology for validation), its simply an issue of which value system you want to ride with.

IOW you are not bugged by the lack of support for the claim of life being materially reducible yet you bring this to bear on the (apparent) lack of the opposite.

Clearly something else must be at work in your system.

From your references to your previous brush with theism, I would say bitterness.

the primary quality of a soul is desire ... and its the nature of existence that it finds its expression in a variety of transparent and clouded mediums

The first thing is develop some sort of control on the instruments (or outlets) of desire. In spiritual affairs, one's first duty is to control one's mind and senses.

IOW the instrument of "knowing" is not a microscope or a telescope. It's the self. Its the nature of conditioned life that the self is in a such a dysfunctional state that it cannot begin to inquire.

Empiricism has no such requirement of course ...

 

lg,

Dream on. The issue is really extremely simple –

We live in a material world and the material state is well known. The immaterial is unknown outside of human imagination. You are not in any position to argue that I do not have any basis when you are in a far worse position. You have nothing, not even meaningful inductive data to point to the existence of anything immaterial.

LOL, no just very enlightening; one of the most useful lessons of my life so far.

Yes, human imagination. But beyond that, I fully appreciate the overwhelming power that emotions can exert on an individual. Controlling them, being free to openly experience them, and to have the discipline to work with them, are the marks of enlightenment and wisdom. We are emotional beings and we must accept that, these are essential powerful phenomena that make us human. But I have no reason to believe these are anything other than features generated by the human brain. There is no evidence of anything else and no need to look elsewhere until we have fully analyzed how the brain operates.

I do really understand your position, although since the Maharishi died at a relatively young age I have lost most of any appeal I once had for that style of spiritual mysticism. However, I do recognize the phenomenal power I can experience in the form of my own mind and the wonderful experiences it has presented me. But none of that in the least leads me to believe that there is anything more to my mind than a very wonderful organ we know as the brain.

You will need to do much more than appeal to our emotions and potential absence of self-control if you are to convince anyone that anything immaterial is possible.

 

A few (maybe one) people have postulated that souls travel faster than the speed of light, instantaneously in fact. Anyone else loling at this?

 

LOLing?
It's easily provable.

Souls don't exist, therefore they're nothing.
And nothing travels instantaneously.

 

Please can you just answer the question. I haven't stated my position on it yet, so please don't merely turn the question without having the decency to answer it first.

Why do you think material replication is a requirement of either materialism or reductionism?