Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hawkingfan · 05-23-2003, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aradia
Oh, whew. I was worried we couldn't directly detect dark energy. I'm glad we now are able to. Where can I find a reference to this?

Straw man. If you look again, you'll note that I said, "in most cases deep space". Thanks.

Hawkingfan · 05-23-2003, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aradia
Lack of evidence does not make something false. Perhaps at a later date, when we are more technologically advanced and have more knowledge, we could detect a soul. In the present, thought, we may either not yet have the ability to detect it, or we've detected it but attributed its qualities to something else.

As I noted in my previous post, though, this was merely a pet project of mine. It may or may not reflect what I actually believe.

Speaking of a straw man, the above is a classic, textbook example.

ps418 · 05-23-2003, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aradia
That's kind of like cutting the spinal cord to prove that there's no brain controlling one's leg.

No, its not kind of like that at all. A failure to control leg movement following spinal cord damage would prove that spinal cords are necessary for controlled leg movement, but not that they are suffucient or that they are the only structure involved. In the same way, split brain research proves that without a functioning corpus callosum, the two hemispheres of the brain can maintain something like two seperate consciousnesses, though this will only be evidenced in situations where you blind each hemisphere to the sensory input that the other is recieving. Belief in souls, on the other hand, would seem to entail that brains are neither necessary nor sufficient for consciousness.

Patrick

yguy · 05-23-2003, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aradia
Uh-huh. I've already read that. I hope it was supposed to be evidence that we can directly detect dark energy.

Not at all. Notice that I emphasized that they don't know what dark energy is. Bet I know more about what a soul is than any hotshot physicist knows about what dark energy is.

IOW, I was using you to get to Jake. Sorry.

Aradia · 05-23-2003, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan
Straw man. If you look again, you'll note that I said, "in most cases deep space". Thanks.

Complain all you want, but I see no straw man here. You failed to quote the previous sentence that you wrote: "Everything in this universe is some form of matter (mass or energy) and gives off electromagnetic radiation that we can detect."

Right there, in black and white. *Everything* in this universe [...] gives off electromagnetic radiation that we can detect. Choose your words more carefully next time. Thanks.

Aradia · 05-23-2003, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wounded King
So you believe the soul can be affected by organic damage?

Who are you asking? Hint: quote who and what you're replying.

If you're asking me, no, it can't be affected by organic damage. What a silly question.

Aradia · 05-23-2003, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418
No, its not kind of like that at all. A failure to control leg movement following spinal cord damage would prove that spinal cords are necessary for controlled leg movement, but not that they are suffucient or that they are the only structure involved. In the same way, split brain research proves that without a functioning corpus callosum, the two hemispheres of the brain can maintain something like two seperate consciousnesses, though this will only be evidenced in situations where you blind each hemisphere to the sensory input that the other is recieving. Belief in souls, on the other hand, would seem to entail that brains are neither necessary nor sufficient for consciousness.

Patrick

Seems like a fairly predictable result in regard to my own pet model of the soul. Hardly proof that a soul has nothing to do with consciousness.

Aradia · 05-23-2003, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Not at all. Notice that I emphasized that they don't know what dark energy is. Bet I know more about what a soul is than any hotshot physicist knows about what dark energy is.

IOW, I was using you to get to Jake. Sorry.

Oh, hey, no problem. I just wanted to be sure you weren't trying to turn on me.

Majestyk · 05-23-2003, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I'd say you have it backwards. If anything is an appendage, it is consciousness. Take away mind and body, and soul is what's left.

Yguy, has it right. Take away the mind and body and there is nothing left.

Just as we created fantasies to explain that which we did not understand, we created a fantasy to allow us to avoid the realization of our own mortality. There is no soul outside of our imagination.

Jesse · 05-23-2003, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aradia
Uh-huh. I've already read that. I hope it was supposed to be evidence that we can directly detect dark energy.

What does it mean to "directly" detect something in science, as opposed to indirectly detect it? For example, when we use spectroscopy to find the composition of stars, are we "directly" or "indirectly" detecting the different types of atoms that make up these stars?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.