A few important questions to ponder

[ThaG]

I did not say any such thing about any humans.

That's exactly what you said. Your claim is that immediate experience of the "self" is something different from the external observation of nature and this somehow (by some unimaginable for me leap of reasoning) proves that we have a non-material component.

Aside from the immediate question that arises every time somebody brings this up - how the hell does the "non-material component" interact with the material and how this could ever be integrated with the laws of physics as we know them, there is a very basic flaw in your argument - just because you can not objectively observe yourself (which I may agree with), you can still observe other people in the same way you observe nature and discover its laws, and that's what scientists are doing. And when you do this and you find out that people look like animals, behave like animals, are indistinguishable from animals in every aspect except for their somewhat more highly developed cognitive capacity, and all of this is entirely controlled by genes and proteins and their interaction with the environment, while the hypothesis you present receives zero evidence in support of, this hypothesis goes to the garbage bin until shown otherwise. I don't use the words "proven" or "falsified" because the hypothesis is unfalsifiable to begin with (how convenient). Which means it is useless from epistemiological standpoint so I don't know why we should even bother discussing it.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

That's exactly what you said. Your claim is that immediate experience of the "self" is something different from the external observation of nature and this somehow (by some unimaginable for me leap of reasoning) proves that we have a non-material component.

This does not mean that other humans are not external to you.

Aside from the immediate question that arises every time somebody brings this up - how the hell does the "non-material component" interact with the material and how this could ever be integrated with the laws of physics as we know them, there is a very basic flaw in your argument - just because you can not objectively observe yourself (which I may agree with), you can still observe other people in the same way you observe nature and discover its laws, and that's what scientists are doing. And when you do this and you find out that people look like animals, behave like animals, are indistinguishable from animals in every aspect except for their somewhat more highly developed cognitive capacity, and all of this is entirely controlled by genes and proteins and their interaction with the environment, while the hypothesis you present receives zero evidence in support of, this hypothesis goes to the garbage bin until shown otherwise. I don't use the words "proven" or "falsified" because the hypothesis is unfalsifiable to begin with (how convenient). Which means it is useless from epistemiological standpoint so I don't know why we should even bother discussing it.

Mind/body problem assumes that the dualism of matter and spirit is absolute. One should understand that although a particular body is transient, the underlying substance is not. How exactly the self or soul interacts with matter may not be known, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible. Thus, this so-called "mind/body problem" comes out of an immature understanding of the relationship between spirit and matter. Also, it arises as a problem for Descartes, who assumed that if something has certain fundamental characteristics that cannot be described in physical terms, then all of its properties must be beyond physical description. It is not outside the realm of possibility that the mind has a position in order to interact with the brain. As far as physics goes, the bottom line is that we don't know that all matter only obeys physical laws because we haven't mapped out all of the 100 billion nerve cells in the brain and given a complete mathematical description of them.

The hypothesis is unfalsifiable because it necessarily follows from your being conscious. There is no way to not be conscious and still consciously conceive of some theory wherein consciousness is produced by material arrangement. Therefore, consciousness is the beginning point of knowledge and external considerations are superfluous in that regard. Your problem with this goes back to your insistence that all knowledge comes a posteriori. Your position is epistemologically problematic, not mine.

 

[ThaG]

This does not mean that other humans are not external to you.




Mind/body problem assumes that the dualism of matter and spirit is absolute. One should understand that although a particular body is transient, the underlying substance is not. How exactly the self or soul interacts with matter may not be known, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible. Thus, this so-called "mind/body problem" comes out of an immature understanding of the relationship between spirit and matter. Also, it arises as a problem for Descartes, who assumed that if something has certain fundamental characteristics that cannot be described in physical terms, then all of its properties must be beyond physical description. It is not outside the realm of possibility that the mind has a position in order to interact with the brain. As far as physics goes, the bottom line is that we don't know that all matter only obeys physical laws because we haven't mapped out all of the 100 billion nerve cells in the brain and given a complete mathematical description of them.

The hypothesis is unfalsifiable because it necessarily follows from your being conscious. There is no way to not be conscious and still consciously conceive of some theory wherein consciousness is produced by material arrangement. Therefore, consciousness is the beginning point of knowledge and external considerations are superfluous in that regard. Your problem with this goes back to your insistence that all knowledge comes a posteriori. Your position is epistemologically problematic, not mine.

You make absolutely no sense. You have just decided that something called "soul" exists and you will never change your mind, no matter how much evidence it thrown at you. Even when 50 years from now we do the ultimate experiment of synthesizing a human embryo from scratch and the outcome is a perfectly viable human being with normal intelligence people like you will never stop repeating their mantra.

What you're doing is deciding what your position is a priori and then retrofitting and explaining away everything else. That's not the way proper science is done; in fact it's not the way anything that can be called science is done and it totally contradicts the rules of reasoning.

"Thus, this so-called "mind/body problem" comes out of an immature understanding of the relationship between spirit and matter."

Give me a break. There are no fucking spirits anywhere else other than the sick imagination of deluded lunatics like you and the other 6 billion on this planet who believe in such bullshit, yet you come here and say that just because it is not known how "the spirits interact with matter" we have to ditch all of modern science into the trash, accept something for which we have zero evidence for and an overwhelming amount of evidence that it was a product of our ignorance when we lived in the caves during the stone age, and resort to those same superstitions originating in that stone age to guide us.

That's the essence of your position. If we do so we will be back in the caves until not too long. (Because we are actually doing so, we will really be back to the caves by the end of this or the next century but that's a different topic)

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

You make absolutely no sense. You have just decided that something called "soul" exists and you will never change your mind, no matter how much evidence it thrown at you. Even when 50 years from now we do the ultimate experiment of synthesizing a human embryo from scratch and the outcome is a perfectly viable human being with normal intelligence people like you will never stop repeating their mantra.

I don't see how synthesizing a human embryo in a lab definitively disproves the existence of a soul in any way.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

I don't see how synthesizing a human embryo in a lab definitively disproves the existence of a soul in any way.

As much as a I DO NOT believe in any higher power, the mind/body argument is STILL NOT PROVEN....even by scientists. So this argument has NO END.

Even ThaG can not argue with that one.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

That something is self-evident does not mean that everybody or even most people will be able to see it.

This still makes no sense.

Especially if they have been brainwashed to be blind for it when they were still very young to be able to think for themsleves

Again, you are contradicting yourself here.

If you are brainwashed, the only thing that is self-evident is what is accepted BY that person. Even if you are NOT brainwashed, you accept whatever YOU feel makes sense. You are confusing what YOU believe with what others believe in...again.

Remember, the pre-fix here is SELF...meaning YOU and ONLY you..

 

[ThaG]

I don't see how synthesizing a human embryo in a lab definitively disproves the existence of a soul in any way.

Because it will require a very big stretch of reasoning to explain when and how the soul was "inserted" into it. Especially if we make it with a different genome than ours, just coding for the same thing.

It will not disprove the existence of the soul, because nothing can. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

But it will prove that all you need to make a human is the right combination of DNA, proteins and other molecules, properly situated in space. It may still not be enough to convince the denialists, of course

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

It will not disprove the existence of the soul, because nothing can. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

On another thought;


I realize I am extremely limited by my perspective, small brain, and human condition, but I question the ability to ever definitively prove or disprove the existence of a higher power, even in death.


For example, suppose we die and transcend into the afterlife (and ThaG subsequently shits his new spirit pants lol), with my limited understanding I don't see how one could prove that the experience was not in ones own mind, or it wasn't another dimension of existence, or anything else. Even if God came to me and showed me how God created life, and what the purpose was, all the secrets the universe, I don't see how I could ever know for certain if what I was experiencing with a "higher power" as we define it and not something else.

 

[Big ZAC]

I don't see how I could ever know for certain

And that is the only answer in the Science vs. Religion debate.

 

[ThaG]

And that is the only answer in the Science vs. Religion debate.

No it's not. There are two things that are very wrong with what you say:

(1) What many people don't understand is that this is also the absolute answer regarding everything that science has discovered so far. Yet airplanes fly, computers work, we can make things work. That's because while nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, some things have been shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, there is little doubt that every single deity that has been worshiped during human history has been made up and does not exist in the from and with the characteristics ascribed to him by the followers of that religion.

(2) The answer "I don't see how I could ever know for certain" is epistemiologically correct and in general a good thing to keep in mind. However, it by no means implies that we all have to start going to church immediately. Yet that's exactly what the religious do and they often use that same "you can't prove my God does not exist" argument to show you that they are right.

 

[Big ZAC]

No it's not. There are two things that are very wrong with what you say:

(1) What many people don't understand is that this is also the absolute answer regarding everything that science has discovered so far. Yet airplanes fly, computers work, we can make things work. That's because while nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, some things have been shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, there is little doubt that every single deity that has been worshiped during human history has been made up and does not exist in the from and with the characteristics ascribed to him by the followers of that religion.

(2) The answer "I don't see how I could ever know for certain" is epistemiologically correct and in general a good thing to keep in mind. However, it by no means implies that we all have to start going to church immediately. Yet that's exactly what the religious do and they often use that same "you can't prove my God does not exist" argument to show you that they are right.

(1) I agree that they were more than likely made up but "little doubt" does not = certainty

(2) I'm not saying anybody should "start going to church immediately". Actually I think the exact opposite. People should STOP going to church and explore there spirituality on there own without being told what to believe in. Granted most people are pretty simple minded and appreciate being told what to think, and the fact that they're scared of death allows them to accept religion and spend their time thinking about more "important" things.

What I meant by my original post was there will never be a difinitive answer that will satisfy 100% of humanity on the subject of Science vs. Religion. Never.

 

[ThaG]

(1) I agree that they were more than likely made up but "little doubt" does not = certainty

(2) I'm not saying anybody should "start going to church immediately". Actually I think the exact opposite. People should STOP going to church and explore there spirituality on there own without being told what to believe in. Granted most people are pretty simple minded and appreciate being told what to think, and the fact that they're scared of death allows them to accept religion and spend their time thinking about more "important" things.

What I meant by my original post was there will never be a difinitive answer that will satisfy 100% of humanity on the subject of Science vs. Religion. Never.

I didn't say that that's your position, I described how what you said is often used in defense of faith.

 

[james blunt]

all i got to say is with all the pseudo sience and dis info flying around now days so called atheism has become just as much a religion as any other bullshit out there.
Atheist often seem think that they are so smart because they can make fun of religious nut jobs not knowing that alot of shit they them self belive in is bullshit!

 

[ThaG]

all i got to say is with all the pseudo sience and dis info flying around now days so called atheism has become just as much a religion as any other bullshit out there.
Atheist often seem think that they are so smart because they can make fun of religious nut jobs not knowing that alot of shit they them self belive in is bullshit!

You're joking, right?

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

Similarly, there is little doubt that every single deity that has been worshiped during human history has been made up and does not exist in the from and with the characteristics ascribed to him by the followers of that religion.

.

Have you ever read up on some of the theories about "aliens" coming down during the Mayans existence and the Egyptians?

 

[ThaG]

Yes, the evidence is light to say the least

 

[taetae]

either "aliens" or some sort of advanced human civilization with extremely advanced forms of technology... I don't think evidence is light for that theory.

But this is a bit off topic

 

[ThaG]

either "aliens" or some sort of advanced human civilization with extremely advanced forms of technology... I don't think evidence is light for that theory.

But this is a bit off topic

If there is abundant good evidence in support of these theories (and they are theories and the everyday meaning of the word), where is it?

 

[HERESY]

^^^^ It's on myspace.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

Yes, the evidence is light to say the least

There is a lot of "light evidence" on exactly what happened with the Egyptians and the Mayans. However, if the deity's the worshipped were indeed aliens, then technically, they were NOT made up. I am not saying that it did happen, I am simply playing devils' advocate.