Normal

You're not getting my definition. I'm saying soul is the operator of free will. Not the rational part, not the reactionary part, not the visual conscienceness part. It's METAphysical.

You can't explain it away with neuroscience.

SimplyAtheistic

How so? You have NO empirical data and scientists can explain consciousness using the brain. You have a theory backed up by no evidence, I would call that faulty.
Jake

SimplyAtheistic

Actually, you can. Just as a CPU services an operating system, so a brain services a peron's conscious. No where is this "soul" needed, and just because you say our free will needs an operator doesent mean it makes any sense!
Jake

Normal

Logic -> defined then proved through a process

Soul -> defined then proved through a process

Who said anything about empirical data? Empirical data is USELESS for metaphysical things.

Consciousness and my definition of the soul ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Consciousness -> physical state of being aware

HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO MY DEFINITION OF THE SOUL?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Goober

A question. What exactly does metaphysical entail? That it doesn't physically exist? That it is mearly a concept, like logic?

Also, how have you proved souls exist through a proccess? Can you post an explanation of this?

Wyz_sub10

Yes. Do you not understand what a 'process' is? Assuming you do, can you not demonstrate that in a tangible way to someone who did not? I'm not sure why you find this definition insufficient. Please elaborate.

Because it is what it does. "A driver of a car" does not tell me anything about what the driver is - it could be a person, a robot, or a cactus with feet. All it says is that it drives.

I suppose it can be equally argued that blue spacemen carry bolts of electricity on their backs through wires in such a way that it mimics what we identify as electricity.

Of course at least my theory has identified them as little blue spacemen, and not simply as "operators". Still, it's not a theory I would promote as valid, and not one that any rational person would accept.

I'm not a neurologist. If I was, I could give you the specifics of every detail. But are you asking this question because you don't know, or because you think no one does? If it's the former, then you can most likely find out on your own. If it's the latter, then there's a point to explore further. (I hope you're not just assuming the latter)

Okay - so the soul's intangible. But the point if this discussion was that logic can be empirically demontstrated while soul cannot. If you simply want to say "soul exists, but it is immeasurable," that's fine by me.

I am comparing demonstrating the existence of 'logic' with the exitence of 'soul'. You are trying to sell me on a definition of soul that is metaphysically consistent. That's not a concern. I have been arguing your original premise that 'logic' is no more proveable than 'soul'.

I define a pilot as a person who drives planes, or a robot, or an automatic navigational system.

Not "one" who drives planes. "One" what?

Which logic does not, which is the original point.

Okay, look at it this way - a process doesn't "do" anything. It is a "tool" that you and I might apply to something. "Logic" is a name given to that tool.

You are defining "soul" in such a way that it "does" something - it operates, it is active. Clearly, there is a distinction between the two. You are claiming an active, autonomous force exists. I am claiming no such thing.

The problem, as I have said a few times, is that you are describing a function.

I may say "a selector told me to pick door #2".

"What's a selector?"

"Well, it's something that helps me select."

"But what is it?"

"I've told you what it is - it selects."

Seems that I have told you nothing.

The bottom line is, if you concede that the soul is intangible and immeasureable, than there's nothing to discuss with regard to its function. I could just as well argue for any immeasurable thing.

But the original point was that logic was just as removed from empirical evidence, and this I do not agree with.

phil

Here's the best definition of a soul I have come up with yet, tell me what you think.

DEFINITION: The soul is the part of a person that distinguishes their consciousness from another person's consciousness.

REASON: How am I to distinguish bewtween 2 people? Even just as pertinent, how am I to understant the concept 'I'. We can distinguish bewtween two different bodies becuase everyone's body is different. But how are we to tell if 2 bodies are not controlled by one consciousness? The word we use to distinguish between minds is 'soul'. There is nothing mystical about the word soul; if there was no such thing a soul then we would be unable to understand the concept of self.

What do you think? Is this a reasonable definition for 'soul'?

-phil

SimplyAtheistic

How has a soul been proved through a process!!!!! Just because there are people who are alive doesen't mean they have souls! Tell me exactly how you proved there is such thing as a soul!
Jake

Cojana

I know a soul exists, and its just another you, no difference , one mind in both entities,

Goober

It's not really a good definition at all. You can distinguish between two people's conciousnesses by the fact that they reside in different brains in different bodies. There is no need for a part of a person to do this. You could define soul in this way, but then according to this definition soul is just another word for brain.

Also, the definition says nothing about what you consider a soul to actually be. Sure, if this is what it does, then what the hell is it?