SimplyAtheistic

You don't need a soul to unite emotion, thoughts, etc.. into a coherent self. You need a brain.
Jake

SimplyAtheistic

For something as important as your ticket to heaven, you would think a soul would be concrete. Yet it is obvious it was some fiction produced by writers a long time ago, and yet people still grope to add some meaning to this term.
Jake

Pyrrho

It may be useful to take a look at a standard dictionary listing for the word "soul":

From:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soul

The first thing to observe is the fact that, like so many other words, there is not a single definition of the term, so anyone who says "THE definition of the word soul is X" is necessarily wrong no matter what they say for "X", as the term has multiple definitions (they may give A correct definition for the term, but it is not THE definition of the term).

Presumably, you don't have in mind definitions 4 or 6-10. You probably also don't have in mind definition 5, since you affirm that the "soul" does not exist. You are probably thinking of definition 2, and are merely affirming that there is no immaterial thing "attached" to a human body, that is the "essential" part of a person.

Notice that definition 1 appears to be identical to the mind (at least as it is commonly thought of). You appear to be rejecting that idea, as, indeed, some do who speak of a "soul".

I think it would be useful for people to define the word "soul" in their posts so that we might have some idea what they are talking about, as the term has multiple and contradictory uses. So we can expect some of the disagreement to arise from the use of different definitions of the word, and be purely linguistic disagreements. (I do NOT mean to suggest that that is the only kind of disagreement that people have, but it is necessary that we are clear about the meaning of the terms we use to know what, precisely, the real disagreements are.)

yguy

As I said, thought is subordinate to consciousness, not the other way around. If it isn't, something's wrong.

Picture the brilliant mathematician driving on a mostly empty straightaway, totally engrossed in solving some equation or other to the point where he forgets where he is, and finds his car wrapped around a power pole. If thought is the ultimate expression of consciousness, how is it possible that being totally involved in it can make him do anything that stupid?

No, it isn't, because all definitions are assailable on logical grounds.

If it's such a grave error, you would do well not to commit it by putting your faith in the perceptions of the High Priests of Empiricism.

SimplyAtheistic

You have the situation in total reverse. Firstly, the mathematician example is just silly, it only shows that a man could use the processes of his brain while ignoring input. Secondly, consciousness is subordinate to thinking. Consciousness is simply the level of thinking where you are able to rationalize your own existance. You can perceive it and have it make sense in your mind.

[QUOTE]
No, it isn't, because all definitions are assailable on logical grounds.

If it's such a grave error, you would do well not to commit it by putting your faith in the perceptions of the High Priests of Empiricism. [\QUOTE]

I don't put faith in anything except well researched material. And that is a completely different kind of faith than yours. Nothing has been shown to reach the conclusion that one has a soul. You read a book and reached a conclusion beforehand, and THEN you tried looking for proof, and of which you have found none. And STILL you cannot even tell me exactly WHAT this soul is. You keep jumping around the question, something christians seem to be very good at. So tell me, WHAT is a soul, and besides your "feeling", why did you come to a conclusion that you had one. I am guessing you read the bible or you tried to explain personality, but lacking the biological understanding of the human, you believe in this god awful fairy-tale. Give up this childish claim and come to your senses.
Jake

yguy

But you are failing to address the question of whether he is more conscious for doing so, or less. Considering the stupidity of the outcome, I'd say less, wouldn't you?

Then why is it possible for consciousness to observe thinking, but not the other way around?

Which means by extension that you put your faith in those who have done the research, since you can't possibly verify all of it yourself.

You haven't the foggiest idea how I reached this conclusion, obviously.

SimplyAtheistic

Yes, he is less conscious of his surroundings by choice. His brain could process input information but instead it is being used for the math problem or what have you, but he is still conscious.

Since consciousness is simply complex thinking, it can realize its own self. But consciousness is STILL a complex pattern of thought. No big miracle or mystery there.

The difference is that I have material to back up claims and I could test the hypothesis if I chose to do so. How do you test if you have a soul? Quite a different approach than yours.

Well enlighten me then, tell me how you came upon the conclusion you have a soul.
Jake

yguy

That being the case, what gives you the idea that thinking is consciousness, since the mathematician is thinking on a higher level than the dockworker in the car ahead of him who has enough sense to pay attention to the road?

An unfounded assertion.

Non-sequitur. Realization has nothing to do with thinking. If the mathematician had realized that he was LOST in his thinking, he wouldn't crash.

Indeed, there is no mystery about the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. You are merely arguing by assertion.

So what? Bible literalists have material to back up their claims too.

And how would you do that?

I realized it. Same way a person realizes something they've believed for years is wrong.

SimplyAtheistic

You are completely missing the point here. It was the mathematician's choice to become less conscious, just because you think on a higher level doesen't mean you heed your input on a higher level. It is all voluntary.

Really, are you familiar with the brain at all? Nerve firings control thought, memories, etc.. Scientists can manipulate parts of the brain and directly control consciousness or the thinking process. Yah, quite unfounded.

Actually, realization is the point in which your thinking reaches the level at which you can understand your input in relation to your own existance. It takes a higher level of thinking. So, realization has EVERYTHING to do with thinking.

I am arguing by biological facts established by scientists. Are you telling me the brain and its neurons do not DIRECTLY control the thought process of a man. Why you can disable parts of the brain and DIRECTLY affect the person's ability to think, become conscious, etc.. You are the one who has no idea.


If you call the bible material to back up your claims, then you are sorely mistaken. I am talking about experiments and actual observed information. The bible has proven fallacies and is generally a fairy-tale. It reaches a conclusion without evidence. It is the opposite of reputable material. What research has been done to prove there is a soul? Please show me.


For one, you could manipulate the brain and observe the outcome. When we have the technology, we will be able to simulate the brain as well. That is something that can be tested. Tell me how you plan to test if a person has a soul? If they are alive? This in no way proves they have a soul, it merely proves they are a biological creature.

You didn't answer my question. How did you realize it? Did you wake up one morning and think "gee, I must have a sould because x and y" My guess is that you read the bible and THEN asserted the fact that you have a soul. Whatever the HELL a soul is, a definition you STILL have not provided me with!
Jake

yguy

So you can voluntarily lower your consciousness. This is not news. What does it have to do with the subordinateness of thought to consciousness?

How exactly does this

"Since consciousness is simply complex thinking,"

follow from what you say here?

I mean, we can "control consciousness" in a crude way by anesthesia or hallucinogens, but that doesn't show that consciousness arises from thought by any means.

Then how exactly is it that our absent-minded mathematician blocked himself from the REALIZATION that he was out of control BY THINKING?

If neurons firing are what controls thoughts, what controls neurons firing?

So far, you have failed to demonstrate any understanding of what consciousness is, so your interpretation of whatever you've read on the subject is decidedly questionable from my POV.

You missed the point.

Maybe so, but Bible literalists can produce as much "documentation" as you can. You won't find it credible on the grounds that the evidence doesn't support the conclusion, but you have so far failed to demonstrated that any of your evidence supports your conclusion.

[quote] It is the opposite of reputable material. What research has been done to prove there is a soul?
[quote]

I don't know, and I don't care.

Fine. Cite an example and tell me how the result justifies your thesis.

No, that is something that COULD be tested. As relevant as such far off possibilities are to the discussion, you might as well be telling me about warp drive engines and photon torpedoes.

I don't. Why should I test for what I already know exists?

By disengaging from the thought process. That's how all realizations happen.