Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hawkingfan · 05-22-2003, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aradia
soul: n. A form of energy.

If that were true, then we would be able to detect it. It would give off electromagnetic radiation of various wavelengths, perhaps even light.

SimplyAtheistic · 05-22-2003, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Of course it does, if thought controls consciousnes, an assertion which you have yet to provide a shred of evidence for.

Not a shred eh? I told you, drugs that disable neurotransmitters, thus disabling thought, can disable consciousness. That is evidence that is proven. So tell me how I am wrong on this.

Quote:

No, it only shows that consciousness and thought can be influenced by external stimuli. Kindly demonstrate how if follows from this that consciousness arises from thought.

You agree that thought originates from the brain right? If consciousness is something controlled by a soul, how does interrupting thought affect it?

Quote:

That, of course, is absolutely non-responsive. You are merely stating obvious facts which have no bearing on the issue.

This has direct bearing on the issue. You asked how he could block realization with thinking. I told you.

Quote:

If that's the case, it appears there is no such thing as free will, and it is impossible to judge mass murderers as evil, for instance. You OK with that?

We have our sense of free will, which is enough for me. Ultimately we have no control, but to us we do. And our choices can be influenced, so a murderer has no excuse. The point of the court system is to protect society, not to judge someone as evil. Read a law book.

Quote:

I have never claimed access to any compelling empirical data. You have, but have so far failed to produce even the merest hint of a specific scientific reference.

I am not going to dig around for a link as I am in the process of moving. The data I have given you is easily accessible, the drug example for instance. Also, any biology book should answer your questions.

Quote:

It's not mine, because I'm not a Bible literalist.

Bible literalists are the only truthful christians. Cherry pickers are people who would do anything to keep their beliefs true. If you cannot take the creation story at face value, it is worthless. And why would a god twist something as important as that into some metaphorical nonsense.

Quote:

You have provided no evidence whatsoever, only your interpretation of what you say you have read.

Again, read a biology book or take some drugs, either one will support my claims.

Quote:

You have yet to demonstrate how any of this implies that consciousness is subordinate to thinking.

I have demonstrated FULLY how consciousness is subordinate to thinking, please re-read my other posts.

Quote:

If I were interested in proving to you that there is such a thing as a soul, a test would certainly be in order. Things being what they are, I suggest you complain to someone who cares.

It seems you care, as you continue to post. This last statement seems an admittance of defeat.

Jake

SimplyAtheistic · 05-22-2003, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aradia
Wow. Interesting. Jake, you should try to stop looking at everything as a computer. You know what they say about those whose only tool is a hammer...

soul: n. A form of energy. In a living, conscious entity, the soul is the illusion of "self", or ego. It is the thinker, separate from the thoughts.

Of course, as a buddhist, I don't actually believe in a self, so it stands to reason that I also don't believe in a soul.

However, as a computer programmer (Hi Jake), I realise that a computer is useless without somebody operating said computer. As someone finally pointed out, if the self is defined by neurosynaptic responses, one must ask what is the initial cause. If physics is the only law, then we are completely without choice, and you are unable to choose what you think. You cannot stop thinking about the colour red, and start thinking about the colour blue. It's either destined to happen, or it isn't. It is this inherent ability to *control* our own minds that is the crux of the problem (including the problem of AI).

The entire philosophical discussion comes down to one thing, and one thing only.

Do you believe in free will?

Yes, I believe ultimately we have no free will, but we can be influenced and we have a sense of free will, which is enough for me. Also, your point about the computer and it needing an operator, it does not. It simply needs software to run, and the software of the brain has been randomly coded through millions of years. The brain does work like a computer to an extent, so I think I am justified in my claims.
Jake

SimplyAtheistic · 05-22-2003, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
Well, to clarify my question, think of one neural event happening, thus creating (in some way) a mental event. Then think of, some time later, another mental event happening, in a different part of the same brain. This also creates a mental event. My question is: why do they have some connection, in that the person experiencing the second event is concious of being the same person who experienced the first, rather than being separate, self-contained mental experiences as two neural events in separate brains would cause?

I believe the point you are missing is that when a mental event occurs in one brain, it alters the universe of that person's existance. So, any change will directly affect the whole of that person. Its like in DNA, you alter one codon, and the person that is born might be entirely different than the original.
Jake

Aradia · 05-22-2003, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
"The thinker, separate from the thoughts" is actually quite a good definition of the soul, getting back to my original question (I feel, what with JakeJohnson and yguy's ongoing battle, the discussion has drifted from this somewhat.) Of course, ti still leaves us with something very difficult to get to grips with, and raises the question of how one unitary thinker arises for all these different thoughts just because they happen to arise in the same brain (though of course not all thoughts are conciously thought and experienced by this 'thinker'/'soul'...)

Any ideas or further thoughts?

The thinker doesn't arise from the thoughts. The thoughts arise from the thinker. In the view I formulated, conscious thought is more or less a communication channel for the thinker. In that respect, unconscious and subconscious "thought" (for lack of a better word) are also communication channels, though not directly experienced by us. The body in the "material" world is necessarily limited, so we can't experience ourselves as the thinker itself, since all of our experiences are bound by our bodies and brains. Emotion can fit nicely into this model as a type of "unconscious thought". I've wondered if it would be possible to get a clearer conceptualisation of the thinker in an advanced meditative state, but my own meditative skills are too lacking (especially since I've not done daily meditation for over a year now).

This was sort of a pet project of mine, if you will, many (many) years ago to try and formulate a more "scientific" explanation for the concept of a soul. I still think it could be refined quite a bit.

Aradia · 05-22-2003, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan
If that were true, then we would be able to detect it. It would give off electromagnetic radiation of various wavelengths, perhaps even light.

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.

Aradia · 05-22-2003, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JakeJohnson

You agree that thought originates from the brain right? If consciousness is something controlled by a soul, how does interrupting thought affect it?

Because we perceive our consciousness through use of our brain. If brain function is affected in some way, obviously our perception of consciousness is affected. It's not a matter of interrupting thought, it's a matter of interrupting the *brain*.

With enough practice, one can turn off all conscious thought in meditation. Does that mean one is no longer conscious, or no longer has consciousness?

Aradia · 05-22-2003, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JakeJohnson
Yes, I believe ultimately we have no free will, but we can be influenced and we have a sense of free will, which is enough for me. Also, your point about the computer and it needing an operator, it does not. It simply needs software to run, and the software of the brain has been randomly coded through millions of years. The brain does work like a computer to an extent, so I think I am justified in my claims.
Jake

To an extent. But only to an extent. But the real point is free will. Without free will, it's not that we "can" be influenced, it's that we "are" influenced. More so, our choices (if you can call them that) are exclusively determined by stimulus. If there is no free will, then no, we don't need an operator, and this entire thread is moot.

Of course, then the conversation must turn to determination vs. free will. New thread.

SimplyAtheistic · 05-22-2003, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aradia
The thinker doesn't arise from the thoughts. The thoughts arise from the thinker. In the view I formulated, conscious thought is more or less a communication channel for the thinker. In that respect, unconscious and subconscious "thought" (for lack of a better word) are also communication channels, though not directly experienced by us. The body in the "material" world is necessarily limited, so we can't experience ourselves as the thinker itself, since all of our experiences are bound by our bodies and brains. Emotion can fit nicely into this model as a type of "unconscious thought". I've wondered if it would be possible to get a clearer conceptualisation of the thinker in an advanced meditative state, but my own meditative skills are too lacking (especially since I've not done daily meditation for over a year now).

This was sort of a pet project of mine, if you will, many (many) years ago to try and formulate a more "scientific" explanation for the concept of a soul. I still think it could be refined quite a bit.

Actually, the thinker does arise from the thoughts. The thoughts of a very primitive animal are limited to "see red, run" or "see object, eat" This is because they lack the neural capacity to link thoughts together to form a complex thought. Humans can see an object, see a color, see it move, and then they can link this with other thoughts to make sense of it. There is no need for a soul anywhere in the picture.
Jake

SimplyAtheistic · 05-22-2003, 12:33 PM

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.

True, but there is no reason to suspect a soul without evidence. There is nothing that cannot be explained that would require this mysterious "soul".
Jake

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.