yguy

I'm afraid we do - and it's because you're not honest with yourself. You know very well that my remaining cool under intellectual fire is nothing like evidence that I know I'm wrong. When you are ready to look at your self-deception, perhaps we can talk. Until then, happy trails, kid.

SimplyAtheistic

Heh, another time you doge the subject by demeaning my age and focusing on other subjects. I asked a polite question, now please answer it, or admit you can't, just don't take the side routes as a way out.
Jake

Normal

So are you really claiming your "logic is a process" definition is better?

I'm not clear on why you think "operator" doesn't speak to what it is.

Isolating that region does not disprove the existence of the soul, by my definition. That region of the brain might act out the choices that the soul chooses, ie. you have no way of knowing if the choices are actually MADE in that part of the brain. The associative cortex was the vague (and very unfulfilling) answer given earlier. That area of the brain responds to stimuli given to the brain, but can you really KNOW if that area is the thing making the choices, or just acting out the response?

The very definition of ethereal is "intangible". I described the soul in very intangible terms. And as mentioned above, I am not substituting one word for another interchangably.

It MAY be distinct. I imply above it IS more then the meat and the wires.

You could say the act of choosing, but I'm really not sure what's wrong with "operator". It seems you're just rejecting metaphysical implications.

I still don't understand what is wrong with saying the soul is the operator of choice. How do you define a pilot? One who drives planes. How do I define the soul? One who drives free will.

Questions I obviously cannot answer.

Therein lies the trouble with something which lacks empirical evidence.

Your proof of logic is the exact same as my proof of soul. Which both define something, yours is a process, mine is an operator, and then we apply it to show that it exists. You obviously have a problem with me calling it an operator for the definition, but I still don't see your problem with that definition.

SimplyAtheistic

It seems to me this "soul" you speak of isn't even necessary. All the functions can be traced back to the brain and yet it needs an operator? The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, and you have yet to provide any evidence supporting this assertion. I can show you documented scientific studies that show which parts of the brain are responsible for what, and how they can be affected. All you can do is hypothesize without evidence. I can also hypothesize that magic gorillas are the operator of consciousness, try and disprove me. The problem is this hypothesis is illogical and without evidence. What part of brain function needs further explanation? Why do we need this soul?
Jake

scombrid

Perhaps because the animal hasn't been conditioned socially to be "embarrassed" by nudity. Some asocial animals probably don't feel much in the way of embarrassment or guilt but the social ones likely do. What do you think drives conformity to the group's norms, reason?

Did you miss the post that demonstrated the loss of the ability to be embarrassed due to various frontal lobe problems. It's a brain process.

scombrid

To a dog you're just another member of the pack, a dominant member but a member none the less. I've seen aggressive dogs treat children and women as subordinates. Funny you should pick dogs because they are strongly social and express both guilt and deception. It's funny when you come home and the dog that normally bounces to greet you at the door is nowhere to be found. You immediately know they've torn something up or had an accident on the rug. What drives them to hide? complex reasoning? or a gut feeling (you know that sinking feeling followed by the flushing face when you've knowingly violated some rule and get busted)? Does that "gut feeling" expressed in my pooch mean he has a soul or do we have certain brain processes in common as social animals?

Polar bear can be taught not to kill humans willy nilly. If they're murderous because they lack a soul, how are captive bears trained not to kill? simply fear? If that's the case why doesn't fear of reprisal stop sociopaths if fear works on a soulless animal?

Normal

You make a lot of assumptions about my qualifications about the brain. I'm well aware that we can track down the response action in the brain. I'm saying that "response action" and "choosing that action" are two different functions, thus necessitating the need for the soul. I can't disprove your magic gorillas anymore then you can disproof my soul DUE TO THE LACK OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF EITHER, WHICH IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS WHOLE TIME.

It's a hypothesis, untested and unproven, AND I'M NOT CLAIMING IT IS OTHERWISE.

SimplyAtheistic

Why believe in such a faulty hypothesis then? The brain is capable of making decisions, it is simply a complex neurological response. Maybe you and yguy should study up on neurological programming, as it can explain these things in more depth.
Jake

tribalbeeyatch

Forgive me if this has already been brought up, but we know that electrical activity in the brain is correlated with, necessary for AND SUFFICIENT TO EVOKE a particular choice in visual discrimination tasks. If you're interested, look up Bill Newsome's work on area MT. I hear that Bill wants to have his own area MT stimulated so that he can experience for himself what it is like to see and perceive 100% coherent leftward motion but still decide to report it as rightward motion.

yguy

You are confusing embarassment with shame. A person can be embarassed without anyone else on the planet knowing that they are, or what they did to get that way.

If memory serves, I addressed it. If you can't find my answer and want one, post it again.