Normal

It is a useless debate. As I stated previously there is no empirical evidence of a soul. Any empirical evidence we do find will be turned into science, which invalidates this whole thread, which is what I was trying to say earlier.

No need for hostility.

SimplyAtheistic

My hostility arises from yguy's ignorance. Its like I am waving a red flag in front of his face and he keeps yelling "The flag is green damn it! Can't you see that? Since it moves in the wind it has some driving force behind it that a red flag obviously lacks. I mean, I can look at its pole and tell if it is green or not!" You get the point.
Jake

yguy

But of course, from my POV, it is you who is ignorant...but this does not produce hostility in me. Why should it? And why should my ignorance - stipulating that I am ignorant from your POV - produce hositility in you?

Abacus

This discussion is getting kind of old. We should try something different. Can we have a discussion about what fairies are?

Wyz_sub10

You're still defining it by what it does, Normal. "It is the operator of free will." Saying it "is in the driver's seat" still doesn't speak to what it is.

Yes, activity in the brain during decision-making can be monitored. But I was referring to the brain, overall. Still, you can isolate the region.

Because, for one thing, if I defined sapce cabbage in sucha a way, then it is simply another name for the actual cause, and not a different thing. (Also, I'm guessing this space cabbage would have a 'space' property and a 'cabbage' property, of sorts. These would have to be consistent with the actual cause.)

So if you are saying the soul is simply another name for a specific set of brain functions, fine. But then the "soul" is nothing eternal or ethereal.

I think most proponants of the idea of "soul" believe it is something distinct from the brain - it is more that the meat and wires. If it is, what is it?

The difference is very distinct - "logic" is only a name given to the process.

I do not doubt that "choice" exists. Are you suggesting "soul" is simply a name given to the process of choosing?

Agreed, as above. But you didn't say that "soul" was a name for "choice". You said it was an operator of choice. I do not suggest that "logic" is an operator or the process (it is the name of the process).

Not necessarily. If the soul can interact with the physical word now, is there a reason it cannot after death? Could we not detect its presence somehow after the body dies?

If you say this is not possible, than I am confortable in saying that there might be such a thing, but there is no rational reason for believing so, and in any case, it is not detectable or measurable. (Although "logic" is. )

I don't see how you arrive at this conclusion. What is insufficient? There is a process - we can use it and it is definable. We have assigned a name to it. What's the problem?

SimplyAtheistic

I think you feel no hostility because I provide evidence for my views and deep down inside you know that you are wrong.
Jake

yguy

Let me get this straight: I'm sitting here cool as a cucumber because I know I'm wrong? That makes sense to you?

SimplyAtheistic

Yep.
Jake

yguy

That would certainly explain why we have such a failure to communicate.

SimplyAtheistic

We have no failure to communicate. You fail to face facts. You still haven't responded to my last rebuttal. I was upset when I wrote that, but it does not affect my judgement nor my logic. One colorful word in no way discredits my opinion, rather it gives insight to my emotional state at this point. So, to clarify things, respond to this please, and I shall respond in the most polite manner. What exactly is a soul? Do not tell me it is the force that enables consciousness or what not. You can not prove this and it is a an explantion in need of evidence. Nextly, tell me the evidence that led you to believe there is such a thing as a soul. Again, do not tell me you just know because you can observe consciousness. This again is a conclusion reached without evidence. This would be like me saying "We have magic dogs that drive our consciousness, they interact with our brain but in reality they provide us with our consciousness". You can disprove me no less in this than your ambiguous claim of a soul. So please, respond to this.
Jake