Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Normal · 06-08-2003, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

It's not insufficient if my definition of a soul is sufficent, which was my point.

The demonstration of logic proves it exists.

The mere act of making choices proves my definition of a soul exists.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
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.

So what's wrong with that? Do you want me say that souls are little blue men with winged feet? I don't know your "driver" anymore then you know my "driver", but if you look up the definition for pilot, you'll see that it says "Driver of airplanes", is that definition sufficient, or do you want them to describe the driver too?

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
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 see. So you do want me to give a color, shape, and other physical properties to the soul. As I've been claiming all this time, it's a metaphysical concept, meaning it can't be explained in that manner.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
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)

I'll explain to you why neurology is completely useless in disproving my definition of the soul.

IT DOES NOT GIVE US AN ANSWER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHETHER HUMANS HAVE FREE WILL OR NOT.

Neurology has NOTHING to do with free will.

My definition of the soul has EVERYTHING to do with free will.

It's hard to believe Wolfram is pushing determinism while Hawkingfan is swearing free will exists in the associative cortex.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
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.

Logic is also intangible. You observe logic in action the same way you observe the soul in action, ie. you observe logic as it goes through a process, you observe the soul as you make choices. Both are equally valid "empirical" evidence if you ask me.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
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'.

Please elaborate on your problems with what I've said above then.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
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?

I'm going to take this definition of pilot from dictionary.com, if that's ok with you:

1. One who operates or is licensed to operate an aircraft in flight.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
Which logic does not, which is the original point.

Logic DOES have the same trouble as the soul, which is also my original point. I've explained this above (and probably below).

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
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.

Yes, there are distinctions between the two. But is logic not active while in the process? A soul is just a process in constant action.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
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.

Look at my above examples of the definition of pilot and how I proved the soul through free will, then tell me what's wrong with the defintion.

Normal · 06-08-2003, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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?

Metaphysical means what the word implies. It can't be explained with a physical sense, with physics, with empirical data, by using the senses, etc. You could think of it as a concept like logic if that helps.

The mere act of making choices proves my definition of a soul exists.

Normal · 06-08-2003, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JakeJohnson
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

The mere act of making choices proves my definition of a soul exists.

PandaJoe · 06-09-2003, 12:32 AM

Normal, I think you miss Wyz's point. You claim that a soul drives our choices, but you don't explain why this makes it a metaphysical concept in any way. Why should we assume that the operator of choice is intangible in any way?

Wounded King · 06-09-2003, 02:56 AM

Dear Normal,

Your definition of a soul is pretty idosyncratic not to mention limited.

You seem to be saying it is that element of human mentality which does not have a naturalistic explanation. This doesnt really adress what a soul is though and leaves it open to severe reduction as more naturalistic explanations come forward.

Your arguments about the soul as an operator of free will assume that free will exists other than as an abstract concept, is there any evidence of this?

If you feel that your metaphysical arguments are not relevant to a scientific discussion then why bring them up? The soul doesnt have to be solely in the realms of metaphysics if it actually exists. If of course it doesnt really exist then it probably is stuck in the land of grandfather paradoxes and discussions of the ontology of God.

Goober · 06-09-2003, 04:06 AM

Normal, you could define the soul in this way, and I suppose it is a legitimate definition, even though it doesn't really correspond to what the majority of people think a soul is.

If it is defined as 'the operator of free will' (I seem to recall this being your definition), we now have to find out what this is. OK, so what is free will? I say it is the ability to freely make our own decisions based on the circumstances we find ourselves in. Our brain takes in information from the environment, processes it and makes decisions. Sounds like free will to me. This of course makes neuronal signalling within the brain 'the operator of free will', so in my opinion your definition of the soul is simply neuronal processing within the brain.

Of course you conviniently ignore this possibility by saying that it must be metaphysical. But you seem to have no proof that 'the operator of free will' is metaphysical.

Also, if the soul is an abstract concept like logic and not something that exists, what on earth does it mean to have a soul go to heaven? Surely it would be totally meaningless to have an abstract concept going somewhere. Can you send logic to hell? The number 2 is an abstract concept. Can 2 go to heaven?

Wounded King · 06-09-2003, 04:15 AM

Some of the logic on these threads goes to hell pretty quickly.

mouse. · 06-09-2003, 05:42 AM

A soul in my mousey opinion and I apologise for not reading every page.:notworthy

Is the bodies energy that keeps everything functioning once that energy dissipates no soul left.

I asked some friends of mine and their retorts were;
1-his soul is his stomach.
2-her handbag

3- he exchanged it for a hot-dog
4- the heart
5- some military secret weapon

6- it lives under the bed with the dustmites.

mouse.

Normal · 06-09-2003, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PandaJoe
Normal, I think you miss Wyz's point. You claim that a soul drives our choices, but you don't explain why this makes it a metaphysical concept in any way. Why should we assume that the operator of choice is intangible in any way?

It's metaphysical because we have no physical evidence of it.

But if we have free will it necessarily exists.

Normal · 06-09-2003, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wounded King
Dear Normal,

Your definition of a soul is pretty idosyncratic not to mention limited.

You seem to be saying it is that element of human mentality which does not have a naturalistic explanation. This doesnt really adress what a soul is though and leaves it open to severe reduction as more naturalistic explanations come forward.

Your arguments about the soul as an operator of free will assume that free will exists other than as an abstract concept, is there any evidence of this?

If you feel that your metaphysical arguments are not relevant to a scientific discussion then why bring them up? The soul doesnt have to be solely in the realms of metaphysics if it actually exists. If of course it doesnt really exist then it probably is stuck in the land of grandfather paradoxes and discussions of the ontology of God.

Metaphysical arguments are not relevent in science because they lack empirical evidence. I brought up this metaphysical definition of the soul because people thought they could easily disprove it's existence once they had a definition, when actually it has been completely the opposite. And there is no naturalistic explanation that anyone has come up with.

And again, if we have free will, the soul necessarily exists, by my definition.

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

06-09-2003, 12:32 AM	#244
PandaJoe Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Bloomington, Indiana Posts: 188	Normal, I think you miss Wyz's point. You claim that a soul drives our choices, but you don't explain why this makes it a metaphysical concept in any way. Why should we assume that the operator of choice is intangible in any way?

06-09-2003, 02:56 AM	#245
Wounded King Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 1,211	Dear Normal, Your definition of a soul is pretty idosyncratic not to mention limited. You seem to be saying it is that element of human mentality which does not have a naturalistic explanation. This doesnt really adress what a soul is though and leaves it open to severe reduction as more naturalistic explanations come forward. Your arguments about the soul as an operator of free will assume that free will exists other than as an abstract concept, is there any evidence of this? If you feel that your metaphysical arguments are not relevant to a scientific discussion then why bring them up? The soul doesnt have to be solely in the realms of metaphysics if it actually exists. If of course it doesnt really exist then it probably is stuck in the land of grandfather paradoxes and discussions of the ontology of God.

06-09-2003, 04:06 AM	#246
Goober Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Adelaide, Australia Posts: 1,202	Normal, you could define the soul in this way, and I suppose it is a legitimate definition, even though it doesn't really correspond to what the majority of people think a soul is. If it is defined as 'the operator of free will' (I seem to recall this being your definition), we now have to find out what this is. OK, so what is free will? I say it is the ability to freely make our own decisions based on the circumstances we find ourselves in. Our brain takes in information from the environment, processes it and makes decisions. Sounds like free will to me. This of course makes neuronal signalling within the brain 'the operator of free will', so in my opinion your definition of the soul is simply neuronal processing within the brain. Of course you conviniently ignore this possibility by saying that it must be metaphysical. But you seem to have no proof that 'the operator of free will' is metaphysical. Also, if the soul is an abstract concept like logic and not something that exists, what on earth does it mean to have a soul go to heaven? Surely it would be totally meaningless to have an abstract concept going somewhere. Can you send logic to hell? The number 2 is an abstract concept. Can 2 go to heaven?

06-09-2003, 04:15 AM	#247
Wounded King Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 1,211	Some of the logic on these threads goes to hell pretty quickly.

06-09-2003, 05:42 AM	#248
mouse. Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 36	A soul in my mousey opinion and I apologise for not reading every page.:notworthy Is the bodies energy that keeps everything functioning once that energy dissipates no soul left. I asked some friends of mine and their retorts were; 1-his soul is his stomach. 2-her handbag 3- he exchanged it for a hot-dog 4- the heart 5- some military secret weapon 6- it lives under the bed with the dustmites. mouse.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.