When do you get a soul? & related questions.

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Dinosaur, May 31, 2009.

  1. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    No they don't you liar.

    Some gross physical signs of death:

    Pallor mortis, paleness which happens almost instantaneously (in the 15–120 minutes after the death)
    Algor mortis, the reduction in body temperature following death. This is generally a steady decline until matching ambient temperature
    Rigor mortis, the limbs of the corpse become stiff (Latin rigor) and difficult to move or manipulate
    Livor mortis, a settling of the blood in the lower (dependent) portion of the body
    Decomposition, the reduction into simpler forms of matter
    Ceasing respiration [and heart beat], the body no longer metabolizes
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death

    But the massive apoptosis and necrosis create significant and irreversible changes in the cells themselves.

    I think you are an idiot trying to sell a false dilemma.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    to which I replied


    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


    IOW (since it appears you are reluctant to read between the lines), at the core of reductionism is the idea that the existence of anything is simply a question of material configuration. If a person is tailoring some absolute limitation on what can be replicated or configured, they are subscribing to something other than material reductionism.

    :shrug:
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Swarm
    feel free to offer some examples, contemporary or otherwise.
    nice link
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death#Problems_of_definition

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    what you are missing is that the status of being dead arrives quite some time before these culminative symptoms of decay manifest.

    At the very least, a doctor doesn't have to observe (most of) these things in order to announce someone DOA
    :shrug:
    I think you need to invest a bit more thought before you invest in an argument
    :shrug:
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    -=-

    I think you need to cut back on your meds.
     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Cris
    on the contrary the material state is partially known.
    problems ensue when you extrapolate on this partial knowledge as sufficient for all knowable claims.
    (such as the notion "empiricism has the monopoly on all knowable claims", ironically, being impossible to prove empirically)

    so says you ... or more specifically, so says your values
    actually I was granting that even if your argument that there is no methodology to spiritual claims is valid, you are stigmatized by the same criticism that you hold over theism and the nature of life.

    IOW if the singular issue for you is "what evidence do I have at hand?", you don't have the means to subscribe to either material reductionism or some sort of spiritual duality.

    This is why its obvious that something else is at work in your system.

    hehe

    You think that when bitterness manifests it doesn't take a position on the mantel piece?
    On the contrary, desire is manifest in all life
    There is a wider aspect to desire apart from emotions (which merely adhere to the phenomena of desire in order to lend direction)

    IOW its the nature of "being" or existing as life that desire be manifest. Whether one is happy/distressed about it is merely a detail.
    Interesting

    At the core of Maharishi's teachings is the idea that the self is an illusion.

    This is one of the reasons his teachings are popularly rejected, mainly because it doesn't lead the practitioner towards any alternative outside of the bodily concept of life.

    IOW raising the stakes to "the self doesn't exist" simply lands one more solidly into the material concept of self ... after all how long can one go about combing one's non-hair in the non-mirror and opening the non-door and go into the non-world without doing non-sense?
    Desire screams for attention and pretending that one doesn't have it simply hands the reins over to the bodily concept of life, by default.

    Your suggestion that his teachings would be more valid if he lived longer exemplifies this.

    In short, there's a big difference between tailoring spiritual discipline for spiritual ends as opposed to tailoring spiritual discipline for material ends.
    The mind is just as fallible vessel for self as the body.

    Just as it would be absurd to suggest you possess the same body as you did 50 years ago, it is also equally absurd to suggest you possess the same mind.
    Nevertheless, you still operate out of the same selfhood.
    I am simply stating the basis of the methodology.
    Like any methodology, it has the requirement of being applied properly in order to convince. Its clear to me in this regard, your lack of conviction can be traced to your improper application (ie Maharishi).

    Of course there is the issue of whether one is convinced that a methodology is actually worthwhile or not.
    This, I think, is very much an issue of one's emotional response to it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2009
  9. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    lg,
    You missed the point. The material is established fact, the immaterial is not.
    What bitterness? This is a dead end, this does not apply to my case. I have heard of people being hurt by their past brushes with religion, be very sure, this did not happen to me. I left the experience with an exultant feeling of relief and freedom, the realization that throughout my school years, all the religious babble was just that, gibberish and nonsense. It was a wonderful epiphany - religion is total nonsense. And I have yet to come across anything that has changed my mind and more importantly as I debate here I see my position further strengthen.

    Eastern mysticism has not provided any demonstrable answers. It is an epistemological barren wasteland. Desire remains an emotion generated by the brain.

    Issues of consciousness and self-awareness lay very firmly in the realm of the brain. There are just far too many associated factors, e.g. memory, thinking, emotions, cognition, identity, etc, and a brain whose processing power is phenomenal. It is inconceivable to me that anyone would consider any alternative as a source of consciousness. We have two massive overwhelming elements – consciousness, that we do not understand how it is caused, and the massive complexity of the brain that we also do not understand. It doesn’t take much to realize they are cause and effect.

    Your attempts to support subtle eastern mysticism as a cause of consciousness diminish to total insignificance in the light of this overwhelming obviousness.

    I’m done for this round, and will not likely visit this again. The more we discuss this area the more I realize your claims have no credibility.
     
  10. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396

    Religion is only 96% nonsense.
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    It is merely good manners not to have to ask someone to read between lines when they asked a question, and providing as straightforward an answer as possible also avoids some potential for misunderstanding.

    And my next question - why do you dismiss the infamous "because we don't have the technology yet" - or is it that you accept this as a current limitation rather than an absolute, but merely don't have a rational response to it?
     
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    The material is established fact for whom?
     
  13. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    -=-

    For everyone.
     
  14. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Why? Its your claim. You defend it.

    Ah, but we are not discussing the exact moment of death, of which there isn't one. You said dead and alive. It is easily possible to distinguish an actually dead body from and actually living body even if the process of dying itself can be hard to pin down.

    It is a shame you are such a trivial thinker.
     
  15. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    signal,

    I see you suspect that the material doesn't exist. Please find a brick wall and continuously bang your head against it. When you become unconscious you can be sure the wall is very material. Whilst I will be unable to encouarge all of the 6 billion people in the world to do the same thing I am quite sure they would reach the same conclusion.

    You were joking, right?
     
  16. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    stranger,

    OK, so what's the other 4%?
     
  17. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    more specifically, the material is established by empirical methodologies and the transcendental is established by spiritual methodologies. Calling upon the empirical to determine the transcendental is just like calling upon scripture to determine how to partition your hard drive.

    I was only guessing about the bitterness.
    My point is that it should be obvious how an inimical emotional state (such as bitterness) greatly shapes how a person approaches a claim.
    Frankly I'm not interested in getting into the specifics of your psychoanalytic case. I'm just making the casual observation that you (like practically all atheists) have some deep seated emotional issues that shape how you approach the questions posed by theism.

    as mentioned earlier, there is a distinction between emotion and desire

    Much like electricity lies very firmly within a luminous light bulb.
    If you don't have any issues with correlation = causation you could also say that it is the source of the electricity too .... which explains why correlation = causation is not an acceptable tool of empiricism.
    aka correlation = causation (with a little bit of post dated rain cheques thrown in to boot)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    actually I am just introducing the methodology on how the claim is validated.

    The question is, if there is a claim and a methodology that goes with the claim, why are you reluctant to investigate it?

    Frankly I don't think that you are such a fool as to whole heartedly accept that correlation = causation is valid..... which seems to suggest that there are other issues framing your investigation of the subject (such as being emotionally adverse for whatever reason)

    Generally claims are determined to be invalid at the point of investigating methodology (which we haven't really discussed).

    Determining that they are invalid at an earlier stage (like rejecting theory on face value) tends to indicate bias.

    :shrug:
     
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I can't think of any advocate of material reductionism who subscribes to your rejection of my claim.

    That's why I asked for a few examples, since at the moment you are being coy about even expanding on your rejection


    truly bizarre

    there can be a moment when a person steps in a puddle, cuts a cake or gets married but there isn't a moment when a living person becomes a dead one.

    :m:

    If you bothered to read the link you posted you would see the humour in your use of the word "actually"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death#P..._of_definition



    It a pity you don't read the links you post when trying to criticize an argument

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    fine

    so now that your on board with discussion ....


    Its not why I dismiss it.
    Its simply how empiricism lends itself to credibility.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

    In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from experience.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.



    If post dated rain cheques are an acceptable component of the scientific method, a person could get a nobel prize for a cure for cancer they haven't made yet

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    hence .....

    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
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    You seem to be confusing the arguments here.
    The scientific method is a means of gaining knowledge.
    Belief in a "soul" or any other thing that is non-material is a matter of rationality.

    Current knowledge can take us only so far.
    Noone is making claims of future discoveries of knowledge - so your post-dated rain cheques comments are irrelevant.

    However, we can take existing knowledge and reach rational conclusions. But please note that being currently rational does not mean it is correct, or incorrect, only rational based on existing knowledge.

    The rational conclusion, given the existing knowledge, is that nothing "non-material" is needed to explain the workings of the universe.

    It is irrational to take the existing knowledge - knowing that there is more to be discovered - and to conclude that there must be "non-material" things.


    If I see a person enter a house (and that is the only knowledge I have of the situation) I can reach the conclusion that there is a person inside the house... I haven't seen them leave, but they might have. But rationally I conclude that they are still in there.

    What I don't do is reach the conclusion that a dragon now dwells inside the house. There might be - but it is not a rational conclusion based on the knowledge currently held.


    So enough with the claims of post-dated cheques - it is an irrelevancy.
    I am not making absolute claims that "souls" do not exist - only that they are an irrational conclusion.
     
  22. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    You ignorance is not proof of your claim.

    Yep, under normal circumstances the body dies in stages. The brain actually burns itself out pretty early in the process, starting as early as about 6 min after breathing stops. This is partly why we end up with brain dead people when the body gets resuscitated. Muscle tissue can live for quite some time before dying, which is why hearts can be saved when the person can't. Some things like cornias can last for quite a while since they have access to oxygen outside the blood supply.

    Then some people just seem to be able to survive lack of oxygen longer than normal. Hypothermia can also extend the time a person can be stopped breathing and still brought back, especially for babies and really small children who aren't effected by hypothermia like adults.

    A nice side effect is they now perform heart surgery on infants by chilling them so they don't have to rush the surgery.

    But like I said. Dying may be an extended process which makes it difficult to say if the person is too far gone or not. But dead is dead and there are a lot of very obvious differences between alive and dead which any one except a complete idiot would be able to notice.
     
  23. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396

    You are full of postdated rainchecks.
     

Share This Page