Atheists/Agnostics/Other: Does man have a soul

Wow. I didn't know that computers had souls. Guess you learn something new every day. :rofl

Ah, yes; that would be the "Cake or death?" option.

Gabriel said:

"I don't know" would be an appropriate option to have in the poll ads1981.

Click to expand...

Orion said:

Such arrogance.

There are thousands of plants in the rainforest that possess medicine which are yet undiscovered, yet local natives know of them and how to use them. Because science hasn't discovered those plants, would you call them supernatural?

Click to expand...

A) The very fact that the natives know of them and know how to use them means that science has discovered them.

B) If these were plants which could not be seen, heard, touched, or analyzed in any direct or indirect way then yes they would supernatural.

It is the height of hubris to think that one form of understanding the world can know everything, and if it doesn't know, then no other knowledge is real.

Click to expand...

It is the height of ignorance to accept the existence of something without any evidence for it whatsoever.

Do you see all of the world's civilizations throughout all time talking about an invisible dragon living in your garage? No. But people have talked about the soul and its nature virtually forever.

Click to expand...

Argumentum ad populum.

So take your specious remarks about logic and reason and shove it.

Click to expand...

Specious - Seemingly well-reasoned or factual, but actually fallacious or insincere; strongly held but false; faith-based;

Telling me to shove logic and reason and accusing me of specious reasoning in the same sentence?

Irony - incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result;

Your primitive science that has only been around for a few hundred measely years knows only a fraction of what this existence means.

Click to expand...

Actually science in the form of empirical analysis has been around since antiquity, and modern science can not only explain the existence of the universe but is allowing us to explain the time before the big bang itself through M-Theory; a beautiful convergence between the Quantum (physics of the very small) and General Relativity (physics of the very big).

That's why people don't turn to science to answer existential questions. Those answers reside within us, not outside of us to be searched for and discovered in a lab.

Click to expand...

Actually they reside in a unified field theory.

Science deals with physical nature. It knows nothing about the world of spirit.

Click to expand...

This is like saying that science knows nothing about the world of invisible dragons who breathe heatless fire that live in my garage.

New images of the universe.

[video]http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2010/07/06/intv.planck.telescope.universe.cnn.html[/video]

This guy has soul!

This guy does!

YouTube - DREAMS TO REMEMBER

Agent Ferris said:

A) The very fact that the natives know of them and know how to use them means that science has discovered them.

Click to expand...

False. Something does not exist if it has not been seen, heard, touched, or analyzed by science. That is the way scientific methodology works. So those plants actually do not exist for this reason, even though natives have knowledgeable use of them. In fact, the very way western medical science works is that is not considered to have curative properties UNLESS it has been proven with research. Even if hundreds of natives come forth and say they have folk uses, western medicine would never use those plants because science hasn't verified anything.

Agent Ferris said:

B) If these were plants which could not be seen, heard, touched, or analyzed in any direct or indirect way then yes they would supernatural.

Click to expand...

Then they are as good as, according to scientific methodology. This is why science is not universally practical or useful. It is highly dismissive of things that it has not yet analyzed, and then makes existential assertions about the nature of reality. It relies strictly on deductive reasoning, when inductive reasoning offers much more practical, realistic uses.

Agent Ferris said:

It is the height of ignorance to accept the existence of something without any evidence for it whatsoever.

Click to expand...

There is plenty of research ongoing into near death experiences in relation to out of body experiences. You cannot claim there is no work being undertaken. Rather, it is simply you who have done no research and thus are assuming there is none.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence and preliminary research to indicate that consciousness can be separate from the physical body, even in death. Now, we cannot conclude that the philosophical term "soul" applies here, but there is definitely something within nature happening that we do not yet fully understand.

Agent Ferris said:

Argumentum ad populum.

Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum.

Agent Ferris said:

Specious - Seemingly well-reasoned or factual, but actually fallacious or insincere; strongly held but false; faith-based;

Telling me to shove logic and reason and accusing me of specious reasoning in the same sentence?
[/B]

Click to expand...

Don't quote the dictionary at me like it means anything. This debate is subjective and you know it.

I think it's perfectly logical, based on the work that has already been done, that there is at least enough information recorded to start forming the groundwork theories for the existence of a soul. It will probably take science at least 100 years to catch up to natural phenomenon in that department, but the occurrences exist nonetheless. There is plenty of true testimony to demonstrate that something is happening. Only an absurd fool would dismiss it all and call it specious reasoning.

Agent Ferris said:

Irony[/B] - incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result;

Click to expand...

Blah blah blah.

Agent Ferris said:

Actually science in the form of empirical analysis has been around since antiquity, and modern science can not only explain the existence of the universe but is allowing us to explain the time before the big bang itself through M-Theory; a beautiful convergence between the Quantum (physics of the very small) and General Relativity (physics of the very big).

Click to expand...

You're comparing the science of antiquity to now? There is a lot that science knows now that was "supernatural" back then. Plus the whole earth being flat thing. That's the thing about science... it holds everything as impossible until the research is done; in the modern world, it is taken a step further, and research that could change the minds of billions of people is held back for the status quo.

Thanks for bringing up General Relativity. Can you please tell me what gravity is? No one seems to know. We can explain the effects of gravity, but we don't actually know what it is. As for quantum physics, it actually can explain the soul through quantum entanglement, as I mentioned earlier. It would explain how consciousness can exist separately from the body.

Agent Ferris said:

Actually they reside in a unified field theory.

Click to expand...

Last time I checked there is no such thing. Yet.

Agent Ferris said:

This is like saying that science knows nothing about the world of invisible dragons who breathe heatless fire that live in my garage.

Click to expand...

That line is getting old. Do you have anything new to offer or are you just going to keep putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la"?

You are entitled to your beliefs but know that they are just that, beliefs. You cannot concretely disprove the existence of the soul anymore than I can concretely prove its existence to you using your preferred system, which is science. I find it funny that you can wave your finger of logic at me yet you ignore an entire world of research that is ongoing into the realm of OBEs.

But by all means, keep trying to take the high road. I think you need to feel victorious more than I do.

Yes, man has a soul, and so does woman.

ads1981 said:

From Dictionary.com:

–noun
1.
the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2.
the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
3.
the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4.
the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
5.
a human being; person.

Click to expand...

If you are suggesting that having a soul is solely a human attribute, then I would have to disagree with you.
It is my belief that all living creatures have a soul.

jujuman13 said:

If you are suggesting that having a soul is solely a human attribute, then I would have to disagree with you.
It is my belief that all living creatures have a soul.

Click to expand...

Except for big legged women.

Orion said:

False. Something does not exist if it has not been seen, heard, touched, or analyzed by science.

Click to expand...

Non sequitor much? This statement has nothing to do with my comment, absolutely **** all.

That is the way scientific methodology works.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that something does not exist because it has not been analyzed yet, furthermore, the very fact that the natives have seen it and have used it means that it has in fact been analyzed, IE science has discovered it. Something does not exist if it can NOT be analyzed.

So those plants actually do not exist for this reason, even though natives have knowledgeable use of them.

Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? The natives have knowledgeable use for them, means that science has discovered it.

In fact, the very way western medical science works is that is not considered to have curative properties UNLESS it has been proven with research. Even if hundreds of natives come forth and say they have folk uses, western medicine would never use those plants because science hasn't verified anything.

Click to expand...

Science - Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction, or reliably-predictable type of outcome.

Knowledge and use of these plants means that science has discovered it. :roll:

It's not that the invisible heatless fire breathing dragon that lives in my garage hasn't been discovered yet it is that it can NEVER be discovered because the statement that it exists lacks any and all falsifiability the same as your claim that there is a soul.

Then they are as good as, according to scientific methodology. This is why science is not universally practical or useful.

Click to expand...

Science is universally practical and useful, positive assertions that lack falsifiability are never practical or useful.

It is highly dismissive of things that it has not yet analyzed, and then makes existential assertions about the nature of reality. It relies strictly on deductive reasoning, when inductive reasoning offers much more practical, realistic uses.

Click to expand...

Wow, inductive reasoning is used all of the time in science for example to formulate a hypothesis. :roll:

There is plenty of research ongoing into near death experiences in relation to out of body experiences. You cannot claim there is no work being undertaken. Rather, it is simply you who have done no research and thus are assuming there is none.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence and preliminary research to indicate that consciousness can be separate from the physical body, even in death. Now, we cannot conclude that the philosophical term "soul" applies here, but there is definitely something within nature happening that we do not yet fully understand.

Click to expand...

There is plenty of actual scientific research which proves that near death experiences result from a massive release of dimethyltryptamine from the pineal gland along with various other neurochemical and psychological reasons.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Click to expand...

Please do explain how pointing out your classic appeal to popularity is in any way a reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy?

Don't quote the dictionary at me like it means anything. This debate is subjective and you know it.

I think it's perfectly logical, based on the work that has already been done, that there is at least enough information recorded to start forming the groundwork theories for the existence of a soul. It will probably take science at least 100 years to catch up to natural phenomenon in that department, but the occurrences exist nonetheless. There is plenty of true testimony to demonstrate that something is happening. Only an absurd fool would dismiss it all and call it specious reasoning.

Click to expand...

The claim that there is a soul lacks any amount of falsifiability. That's my entire point, it can't be researched on. There is plenty of valid research into NDE's and it points towards psychological and neorochemical causation not metaphysical causation.

You're comparing the science of antiquity to now? There is a lot that science knows now that was "supernatural" back then. Plus the whole earth being flat thing. That's the thing about science... it holds everything as impossible until the research is done; in the modern world, it is taken a step further, and research that could change the minds of billions of people is held back for the status quo.

Click to expand...

Science was not used to determine the earth was flat. In fact science determined that the earth was a sphere as far back as Pythagoris. In fact not only was the spherical shape of the earth known to the early Greeks but Eratosthenes actually determined the earths circumference around 240 BC. It was not scientists who came up with the flat earth theory it was theists like you whose holy books told them so.

Thanks for bringing up General Relativity. Can you please tell me what gravity is?

Click to expand...

The displacement of space caused by mass.

No one seems to know. We can explain the effects of gravity, but we don't actually know what it is.

Click to expand...

Um, lol you obviously don't even know what General Relativity is, because General Relativity explains exactly what gravity is, that's what the General Relativity Theory does.

Wow.

As for quantum physics, it actually can explain the soul through quantum entanglement, as I mentioned earlier. It would explain how consciousness can exist separately from the body.

Click to expand...

I don't even know where to begin. Quantum Mechanics can explain how two objects can exist in the same place at the same time, but I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the existence of a soul.

Last time I checked there is no such thing. Yet.

Click to expand...

It's being worked on. Saying "god done did it" doesn't work for some of us.


That line is getting old. Do you have anything new to offer or are you just going to keep putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la"?

You are entitled to your beliefs but know that they are just that, beliefs.

Click to expand...

I don't have beliefs I have evidence, you have faith you have beliefs.

You cannot concretely disprove the existence of the soul anymore than I can concretely prove its existence to you using your preferred system, which is science. I find it funny that you can wave your finger of logic at me yet you ignore an entire world of research that is ongoing into the realm of OBEs.

Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring anything except pseudoscience. There are working scientific hypothesis to explain NDEs and OBEs none of which point to the existence of a soul.

But by all means, keep trying to take the high road. I think you need to feel victorious more than I do.

Click to expand...

VICTORY IS MINE!!!! KTHXBAI

Panache said:

There seems to be this popular thought that the existence of a soul is unsupported by the data. I believe this thought to be in error.

I remember where I was on September 11, 2001. This was more than seven years ago. This means that I have not one molecule shared between my current body and the one I had then. My hardware has been completely replaced. In order for "me" to exist beyond the expiration of my hardware, suggests the existence of software.

That which I identify as "me" is clearly not limited to a particular set of particles, but rather to a pattern of thought which can run on this new brain just as well as it did on the old one.

Now y'all can make up a new term for this intangible sense of self which can be empirically demonstrated to transcend the material, but the word "soul" already aptly describes such a phenomenon regardless of whether you may dislike its spiritual connotation or not.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's just a "spiritual connotation." The whole concept of a soul (at least as it is colloquially used) *IS* spiritual/supernatural. You seem to be using it in a very materialistic way, which is confusing. I don't think we actually disagree on any points here. I agree that our thoughts are the result of our neural patterns, not the individual molecules in our brains...I just have no idea why you would call that a "soul."

EDIT POST 61:

"I don't even know where to begin. Quantum Mechanics can explain how one object can exist in two places at the same time, but I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the existence of a soul."

Derp.

Oh and I KILLED SHRODINGERS CAT MYSELF!!! HE'S ****ING DEAD! HA!

Kandahar said:

I don't think it's just a "spiritual connotation." The whole concept of a soul (at least as it is colloquially used) *IS* spiritual/supernatural. You seem to be using it in a very materialistic way, which is confusing. I don't think we actually disagree on any points here. I agree that our thoughts are the result of our neural patterns, not the individual molecules in our brains...I just have no idea why you would call that a "soul."

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't I call it a soul? What would you call the immaterial essence of yourself? I think "soul" pretty much has it covered.

If you are a soul, and if there is no scientific evidence that souls exist, does that mean that there is no scientific evidence that you exist?

Come to think of it, if you are a body, what is the scientific evidence that you exist? To me, you're just a collection of light and sound waves detected by my senses.

I see no evidence of the spiritual so I see no soul.

peepnklown said:

I see no evidence of the spiritual so I see no soul.

Click to expand...

We didn't have evidence of sea creatures found on the latest expedition to the South Pole. Does that mean they didn't exist until we found them?

obvious Child said:

We didn't have evidence of sea creatures found on the latest expedition to the South Pole. Does that mean they didn't exist until we found them?

Click to expand...

To make this simple; if empirical evidence of a soul is found then I will change my mind.

obvious Child said:

We didn't have evidence of sea creatures found on the latest expedition to the South Pole. Does that mean they didn't exist until we found them?

Click to expand...

The difference is that stating that sea creatures exist at the South Pole is not an unfalsifiable statement.

Oh, we're in total agreement. But my point was finding out if agnostics or atheists believe the soul exists. Apparently even if they do, they believe it is attached to the brain, not the heart.

jujuman13 said:

If you are suggesting that having a soul is solely a human attribute, then I would have to disagree with you.
It is my belief that all living creatures have a soul.

Click to expand...

Very interesting video. Recomend it.

[video=google;-429643479737704838]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-429643479737704838#[/video]

edit: something weird going on with that ..

ads1981 said:

Oh, we're in total agreement. But my point was finding out if agnostics or atheists believe the soul exists. Apparently even if they do, they believe it is attached to the brain, not the heart.

Click to expand...

Well everything comes from the same stuff.

When I was in university I got stuck on thinking about big questions. Many people do this I guess. However I think I got a bit excited of it all. Asking questions like why not nothingness as opposed to .. everything around us. I went to physics. Now I am no physis but you can learn alot about what is going on in the field from reading book like "a brief history of time". I read a number of books even one written by Tim Alen.(not a bad book but certainly not as detailed as other books on the subject. I read a book on the lives of particular scientists since the 1600. Very interesting people. Tyco was strange.. all sorts of strange scientists that discovered so much. Sir Isic Newton was a complete slob and so on very interesting books.

Anyhow I got stuck on infinity and nothingness. I reasoned we use 0 in math so we have reference at least in symbol on a grade 1 number line. Nothingness was mathematical. The circle represents infinity because it has an infinite number of points around it’s edge. So.. nothingness even though we cannot perceive it must be real. So why not nothing as opposed to everything?

Now this is where my thinking became strange. Nothingness if it existed I chose to believe that it would be infinitely small and infinitely large. If it existed.. that is all there would be. So this is where I started with physics. I asked a question to that would match an infinitely large or small thing. I looked at atoms and how they are designed with an atom and electrons rotating around the nucleus. Mostly empty space in the atom between the nucleus and electrons. Now.. look at the solar system with a sun and satellites circling around it.. The universe has galaxies that spin around a nucleus.. etc. Again mostly space and the attaction of the nucleus and satilites is gravity. It seemed I found a pattern.

Then I asked two questions. If you could grow exponentially larger and larger expanding outside the solar system galaxies .. to the limits of the universe and beyond. Would you run out of room? I asked can you run out of smaller parts by taking something in half.. and taking one of them halves cut it again.. repeat. How can you run out of smaller parts? So with this I came to believe that everythingness.. (lol) Was infinitely large and small .. the same as nothingness.

To attach some explanation of this all I reasoned that everything is a result of the impossibility of nothingness and that everything and nothing are the same thing. At best I reasoned further that we may exist intentionally as a means of the everything/nothing to realise itself. If none were alive to perceive everything then nothingness would be reality.

I know it is strange but it nearly drove me insane while I thought about the subject for a very long time obsessively. It was an experience that I wouldn’t trade for anything though and to me.. a relatively spiritual experience.

EDIT: Is a very personal story I don't typically explain that experience.

Agent Ferris said:

I didn't say that something does not exist because it has not been analyzed yet, furthermore, the very fact that the natives have seen it and have used it means that it has in fact been analyzed, IE science has discovered it. Something does not exist if it can NOT be analyzed.

Click to expand...

Yet it has no medicinal value until science decides that it does.

Agent Ferris said:

WTF are you talking about? The natives have knowledgeable use for them, means that science has discovered it.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Traditional knowledge predates science by thousands of years. Science doesn't have to discover it for it to be valid, anymore than science has to discover it for it to be real.

Actually, it's funny when medicine "discovers" new medications. Virtually all medications are concentrates of herbal formulae. Traditional knowledge knew about them for ages, yet science claims it is a new discovery. The arrogance is astounding.

Agent Ferris said:

Science - Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction, or reliably-predictable type of outcome.

Click to expand...

Correctness is subjective... although I know you have a specific attachment to science as being the 'most correct' so I think you might have trouble parting with your long founded notions.

Agent Ferris said:

It's not that the invisible heatless fire breathing dragon that lives in my garage hasn't been discovered yet it is that it can NEVER be discovered because the statement that it exists lacks any and all falsifiability the same as your claim that there is a soul.

Click to expand...

I am not dismissing the notion that science has not directly analyzed the soul. What I am dismissing is that you place the discovery of the soul on equal ground of possibility with finding the dragon in your garage.

How can you make such a glaring assumption about future discoveries without any evidence? We don't know what consciousness is yet clearly it exists because we are interacting. You can't see air but you can feel it blowing. We don't know what gravity is yet we see it in motion. In fact, those electron-dot diagrams we're taught in high school chemistry are completely wrong given that no one has ever even seen an electron. We assume they exist because of their effects, which is what a lot of science rests upon.

Inductive reasoning tells us that there must be a specific phenomenon at work, and I find it arrogant to suggest that just because deductive reasoning cannot pinpoint its material essence for analysis, it must not be real.

Agent Ferris said:

Science is universally practical and useful, positive assertions that lack falsifiability are never practical or useful.

Click to expand...

It is useful but hardly universally practical. For instance, in my field of TCM, we used herbs whose use has had thousands of years of observed, inductive results. We use acupuncture that science cannot yet explain adequately, and it works. Yet science does not agree it works simply because it cannot analyze it according to its internal framework.

Let me give you a more practical scenario. A person comes to the western doctor's office complaining of hypochrondrium pain (your side region) that is distending. The doctor immediately checks for hernia, inquires about any symptoms that might indicate infection, and even does blood work for the liver. It all comes back clean, yet the patient complains of pain. Believe it or not, the doctor would side with the test results. "You can't be having pain because the labs came back negative." People come to me all the time with these kinds of complaints and I can actually treat them with medicinal systems whose foundations are not rooted in science. TCM is one example of a system that has some knowledge more advanced than western science, but because science cannot analyze it, it assumes it is inferior, when actually the opposite is true. It would be like aliens showing us technology that we didn't believe was possible but obviously has advanced applications, and then saying it defies science so it cannot be true.

Last week a woman came into the clinic with a lab report showing that she had liver cysts. Her doctor would not refer her to a specialists because the cysts were not yet bigger than 10cm, yet the woman was complaining of discomfort. The doctor said, "Don't worry, your discomfort isn't that big of a problem because we know that cysts under 10cm are not dangerous." So the woman's pain was dismissed because her cysts did not conform to a statistical model.

I am not saying science is useless, but it is young. I turn to it for certain things but not all things. There is an entire metaphysical and spiritual layer to human existence that is undeniable and has tangible results in people's lives, and science will continue to deny it because science is still akin to a child. I think someday metaphysics will become part of it. Until that day, I will be at odds with it.

Based on your posts, I think you too are young. When I was younger I placed science on a holy grail. Travel and first hand experiences of the real world and some very interesting phenomena have taught me that there is a huge deal science cannot explain and probably won't within my lifetime.

Agent Ferris said:

Wow, inductive reasoning is used all of the time in science for example to formulate a hypothesis. :roll:

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand my meaning. Inductive reasoning is not the basis of science, it is simply the preliminary thought process. If you can't prove it with some kind of diagnostic tool, then the induction is invalid. Other systems rely on induction alone just fine. If 10,000 people are treated with an herb for a specific disease and 9,500 people recover, then clearly the herb is useful. But modern medical science will ban entire herbs because the chemistry has not been analyzed sufficiently to extract the key ingredient.

Agent Ferris said:

There is plenty of actual scientific research which proves that near death experiences result from a massive release of dimethyltryptamine from the pineal gland along with various other neurochemical and psychological reasons.

Click to expand...

Yes, I imagine that science can analyze chemicals in a dead brain quite well. What does that have to do with what the person is experiencing as they die? Can science tell me what happens when someone is dying? No.

Science can also dissect the brain and tell us how the various parts relate to physiology. It can't tell me where consciousness is though.

You are making an existential assertion about the basis of reality and psychology simply by assuming chemicals X Y an Z create a phenomenon. Can you tell me why people have experiences being separate from their bodies, and are able to recount in fine detail what was happening outside of the room while they were clinically dead?

Agent Ferris said:

The claim that there is a soul lacks any amount of falsifiability. That's my entire point, it can't be researched on. There is plenty of valid research into NDE's and it points towards psychological and neorochemical causation not metaphysical causation.

Click to expand...

And my entire point is: why does it have to be researched to hold any shred of validity?

Agent Ferris said:

It was not scientists who came up with the flat earth theory it was theists like you whose holy books told them so.

Click to expand...

I'm not a theist but I understand your need to try and categorize my mentality. Just be aware that categorical thought processes too have their faults.

Agent Ferris said:

The displacement of space caused by mass.

Click to expand...

That's an effect of gravity. You're not telling me what gravity ITSELF is.

So basically you're telling me that you believe something to exist because of its indirect effects, even though you've never directly examined the thing in question itself. How is that any different than the notion of a soul and consciousness? We cannot examine consciousness directly but we see its effects all the time. We even have psychology to study the mind. You can only examine consciousness indirectly, but you cannot materially analyze it as a natural function.

Again, I don't propose that science can directly examine the soul at this point in time, but why is it so preposterous to believe that the soul exists?

Agent Ferris said:

Um, lol you obviously don't even know what General Relativity is, because General Relativity explains exactly what gravity is, that's what the General Relativity Theory does.

Click to expand...

I know what relativity theory is. I took university level physics, thanks. Relativity describes the effects of gravity, such as displacement of space-time. It still hasn't told me what gravity itself is. I mean, is it because the universe is spinning round and round in a goldfish bowl somewhere? Is it God using magic energy to push us down? Is it an undiscovered particle (i.e. the gravitron)?

Please tell me what gravity itself is, since you seem to think you know.

Agent Ferris said:

I don't even know where to begin. Quantum Mechanics can explain how two objects can exist in the same place at the same time, but I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the existence of a soul.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about quantum teleportation or duplication. I said quantum entanglement.

Agent Ferris said:

It's being worked on. Saying "god done did it" doesn't work for some of us.

Click to expand...

When did I say anything about god?

Agent Ferris said:

That line is getting old. Do you have anything new to offer or are you just going to keep putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la"?

Click to expand...

I said that because you aren't really having an open dialogue with me. You are taking your metaphysical system that holds a bunch existential assumptions about the basis of reality and trying to super-impose it upon mine as if yours is the more correct. I see no reason to back down from calling you arrogant for that.

You're in the mind trap of "correctness" and this is what I find uncannily similar between the devout non-secular and the staunchly secular. Science holds a lot of interesting philosophy to it and I love it a lot for that, but I consider it one system among many in my journey to understand what this life is to me. I find it laughable that you think you have the holy grail, and better yet, have the audacity to pretend to be the wiser.

None of us really know what this existence is at the end of the day. We can form some good ideas and draw from many sources, but ultimately we are all in the same boat of the unknown.

Agent Ferris said:

I don't have beliefs I have evidence, you have faith you have beliefs.

Click to expand...

You have faith in gravity.

Agent Ferris said:

I'm not ignoring anything except pseudoscience.

Click to expand...

I never claimed my beliefs were scientific? In fact, they are likely very non-scientific at this point.

You act like science is a universal thought process. It isn't. It's one school of philosophy among many.

Agent Ferris said:

There are working scientific hypothesis to explain NDEs and OBEs none of which point to the existence of a soul.

Click to expand...

A hypothesis is unproven, so even if they make the supposition that there is no soul, that doesn't mean the case is closed. You of all people should know that.

Orion said:

Yet it has no medicinal value until science decides that it does.

Click to expand...

Since the Natives have useable knoweldge of it means that science does say it does.

No it doesn't. Traditional knowledge predates science by thousands of years. Science doesn't have to discover it for it to be valid, anymore than science has to discover it for it to be real.

Click to expand...

:roll: Natives discovering these plants and finding uses for them IS SCIENCE.

Actually, it's funny when medicine "discovers" new medications. Virtually all medications are concentrates of herbal formulae. Traditional knowledge knew about them for ages, yet science claims it is a new discovery. The arrogance is astounding.

Click to expand...

As if traditional knowledge of local plants would not be considered science.

Correctness is subjective... although I know you have a specific attachment to science as being the 'most correct' so I think you might have trouble parting with your long founded notions.

Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? How is this a valid response whatsoever to the definition of science which I presented?

I am not dismissing the notion that science has not directly analyzed the soul. What I am dismissing is that you place the discovery of the soul on equal ground of possibility with finding the dragon in your garage.

Click to expand...

Of course I am putting the two on equal footing, they are both unfalsifiable positive assertions and lack any value whatseover.

How can you make such a glaring assumption about future discoveries without any evidence? We don't know what consciousness is yet clearly it exists because we are interacting. You can't see air but you can feel it blowing.

Click to expand...

Exactly you can detect air through an indirect observation.

We don't know what gravity is yet we see it in motion.

Click to expand...

Um no we know exactly what gravity is, it's the displacement of space caused by mass.

In fact, those electron-dot diagrams we're taught in high school chemistry are completely wrong given that no one has ever even seen an electron.

Click to expand...

We assume they exist because of their effects, [/quote]

We don't assume anything, we can actually measure electrons.

which is what a lot of science rests upon.

Click to expand...

Yes a lot of science rests upon measurements. We can measure an electron we can not measure a soul.

Inductive reasoning tells us that there must be a specific phenomenon at work, and I find it arrogant to suggest that just because deductive reasoning cannot pinpoint its material essence for analysis, it must not be real.

Click to expand...

How exactly does inductive reasoning lead you to the conclusion that there is a soul?

It is useful but hardly universally practical. For instance, in my field of TCM, we used herbs whose use has had thousands of years of observed, inductive results. We use acupuncture that science cannot yet explain adequately, and it works. Yet science does not agree it works simply because it cannot analyze it according to its internal framework.

Click to expand...

Analysis has demonstrated that there is little to no difference between real, sham, and no acupuncture. It's called the placebo effect.

Acupuncture treatment for pain: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with acupuncture, placebo acupuncture, and no acupuncture groups -- Madsen et al. 338: a3115 -- BMJ

Let me give you a more practical scenario. A person comes to the western doctor's office complaining of hypochrondrium pain (your side region) that is distending. The doctor immediately checks for hernia, inquires about any symptoms that might indicate infection, and even does blood work for the liver. It all comes back clean, yet the patient complains of pain. Believe it or not, the doctor would side with the test results. "You can't be having pain because the labs came back negative." People come to me all the time with these kinds of complaints and I can actually treat them with medicinal systems whose foundations are not rooted in science. TCM is one example of a system that has some knowledge more advanced than western science, but because science cannot analyze it, it assumes it is inferior, when actually the opposite is true. It would be like aliens showing us technology that we didn't believe was possible but obviously has advanced applications, and then saying it defies science so it cannot be true.

Last week a woman came into the clinic with a lab report showing that she had liver cysts. Her doctor would not refer her to a specialists because the cysts were not yet bigger than 10cm, yet the woman was complaining of discomfort. The doctor said, "Don't worry, your discomfort isn't that big of a problem because we know that cysts under 10cm are not dangerous." So the woman's pain was dismissed because her cysts did not conform to a statistical model.

I am not saying science is useless, but it is young. I turn to it for certain things but not all things. There is an entire metaphysical and spiritual layer to human existence that is undeniable and has tangible results in people's lives, and science will continue to deny it because science is still akin to a child. I think someday metaphysics will become part of it. Until that day, I will be at odds with it.

Based on your posts, I think you too are young. When I was younger I placed science on a holy grail. Travel and first hand experiences of the real world and some very interesting phenomena have taught me that there is a huge deal science cannot explain and probably won't within my lifetime.

Click to expand...

Some Traditional Chinese Medical remedies are valid, others are shams, they have to be taken on a case by case basis.

I don't think you understand my meaning. Inductive reasoning is not the basis of science, it is simply the preliminary thought process. If you can't prove it with some kind of diagnostic tool, then the induction is invalid. Other systems rely on induction alone just fine. If 10,000 people are treated with an herb for a specific disease and 9,500 people recover, then clearly the herb is useful. But modern medical science will ban entire herbs because the chemistry has not been analyzed sufficiently to extract the key ingredient.

Click to expand...

Inductive reasoning is one of bases of science, and your example is not very useful, if one has a hypothesis regarding a certain herbal remedy and that herbal remedy is used in a double blinded study and the experimental group has a significantly higher reaction to the drug in question than the control group then science won't reject it. If the reactions between the control group and the experimental group are nearly the same then any positive reaction can be chalked up to the placebo effect.

Yes, I imagine that science can analyze chemicals in a dead brain quite well. What does that have to do with what the person is experiencing as they die? Can science tell me what happens when someone is dying? No.

Click to expand...

Huh? Um no these were experiments done on live patients by providing them shots of dimethyltryptamine which resulted in NDE type of hallucinations.

Science can also dissect the brain and tell us how the various parts relate to physiology. It can't tell me where consciousness is though.

Click to expand...

That's probably because there is no universal definition of the term consciousness.

You are making an existential assertion about the basis of reality and psychology simply by assuming chemicals X Y an Z create a phenomenon. Can you tell me why people have experiences being separate from their bodies,

Click to expand...

I'm not assuming anything NDE's and OBE's have each been replicated through chemical means.

and are able to recount in fine detail what was happening outside of the room while they were clinically dead?

Click to expand...

Well I would call bull****.

And my entire point is: why does it have to be researched to hold any shred of validity?

Click to expand...

Um because that's what validity means. What use is a positive assertion which lacks falsibiability? The statement "an invisible dragon which breathes heatless fire living in my garage," holds equal validity with the claim that "there is a soul," both are unfalsifiable and both are useless.

I'm not a theist but I understand your need to try and categorize my mentality. Just be aware that categorical thought processes too have their faults.


That's an effect of gravity. You're not telling me what gravity ITSELF is.

Click to expand...

No I told you what gravity is, gravity is the effect of mass on space. :roll:

So basically you're telling me that you believe something to exist because of its indirect effects, even though you've never directly examined the thing in question itself. How is that any different than the notion of a soul and consciousness? We cannot examine consciousness directly but we see its effects all the time. We even have psychology to study the mind. You can only examine consciousness indirectly, but you cannot materially analyze it as a natural function.

Again, I don't propose that science can directly examine the soul at this point in time, but why is it so preposterous to believe that the soul exists?

Click to expand...

I know what relativity theory is.

Click to expand...

No sir you most certainly do not or else you wouldn't have made the absurd claim that: "we don't actually know what it is," when the General Relativity Theory explains exactly what gravity is.

I took university level physics, thanks.

Click to expand...

A university level physicist claiming that the displacement of space by mass is the effect of gravity when gravity is the effect of the displacement of space by mass. Sure thing pal.

Relativity describes the effects of gravity, such as displacement of space-time. It still hasn't told me what gravity itself is. I mean, is it because the universe is spinning round and round in a goldfish bowl somewhere? Is it God using magic energy to push us down? Is it an undiscovered particle (i.e. the gravitron)?

Please tell me what gravity itself is, since you seem to think you know.

Click to expand...

I already told you what gravity itself is, gravity itself is the displacement of space caused by mass, and then you laughingly stated that I was explaining an effect of gravity when gravity was the effect. And now you're claiming that you took University Level Physics and expect to be taken seriously.

I'm not talking about quantum teleportation or duplication. I said quantum entanglement.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what quantum entanglement has to do with a soul.

You have faith in gravity.

Click to expand...

Um no I have empirical evidence for gravity.

A hypothesis is unproven, so even if they make the supposition that there is no soul, that doesn't mean the case is closed. You of all people should know that.

Click to expand...

Working Hypothesis - a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted when no alternatives are available, or when the philosophical implications of the alternatives are considered to be absurd or otherwise undesirable.

Your unfalsifiable positive assertion regarding a soul being responsible for something which can reproduced in the lab is absurd. Further study is needed but the working hypothesis has evidence on its side your unfalsifiable positive assertion has nothing on its side except unprovable conjecture.

Agent Ferris said:

Since the Natives have useable knoweldge of it means that science does say it does.



:roll: Natives discovering these plants and finding uses for them IS SCIENCE.



As if traditional knowledge of local plants would not be considered science.




WTF are you talking about? How is this a valid response whatsoever to the definition of science which I presented?



Of course I am putting the two on equal footing, they are both unfalsifiable positive assertions and lack any value whatseover.



Exactly you can detect air through an indirect observation.



Um no we know exactly what gravity is, it's the displacement of space caused by mass.


We assume they exist because of their effects,

Click to expand...

We don't assume anything, we can actually measure electrons.



Yes a lot of science rests upon measurements. We can measure an electron we can not measure a soul.




How exactly does inductive reasoning lead you to the conclusion that there is a soul?



Analysis has demonstrated that there is little to no difference between real, sham, and no acupuncture. It's called the placebo effect.

Acupuncture treatment for pain: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with acupuncture, placebo acupuncture, and no acupuncture groups -- Madsen et al. 338: a3115 -- BMJ



Some Traditional Chinese Medical remedies are valid, others are shams, they have to be taken on a case by case basis.



Inductive reasoning is one of bases of science, and your example is not very useful, if one has a hypothesis regarding a certain herbal remedy and that herbal remedy is used in a double blinded study and the experimental group has a significantly higher reaction to the drug in question than the control group then science won't reject it. If the reactions between the control group and the experimental group are nearly the same then any positive reaction can be chalked up to the placebo effect.




Huh? Um no these were experiments done on live patients by providing them shots of dimethyltryptamine which resulted in NDE type of hallucinations.




That's probably because there is no universal definition of the term consciousness.



I'm not assuming anything NDE's and OBE's have each been replicated through chemical means.




Well I would call bull****.




Um because that's what validity means. What use is a positive assertion which lacks falsibiability? The statement "an invisible dragon which breathes heatless fire living in my garage," holds equal validity with the claim that "there is a soul," both are unfalsifiable and both are useless.



No I told you what gravity is, gravity is the effect of mass on space. :roll:






No sir you most certainly do not or else you wouldn't have made the absurd claim that: "we don't actually know what it is," when the General Relativity Theory explains exactly what gravity is.



A university level physicist claiming that the displacement of space by mass is the effect of gravity when gravity is the effect of the displacement of space by mass. Sure thing pal.



I already told you what gravity itself is, gravity itself is the displacement of space caused by mass, and then you laughingly stated that I was explaining an effect of gravity when gravity was the effect. And now you're claiming that you took University Level Physics and expect to be taken seriously.





I'm not sure what quantum entanglement has to do with a soul.




Um no I have empirical evidence for gravity.





Working Hypothesis - a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted when no alternatives are available, or when the philosophical implications of the alternatives are considered to be absurd or otherwise undesirable.

Your unfalsifiable positive assertion regarding a soul being responsible for something which can reproduced in the lab is absurd. Further study is needed but the working hypothesis has evidence on its side your unfalsifiable positive assertion has nothing on its side except unprovable conjecture.[/QUOTE]

I can see we are making no headway here. You know my position, I won't restate it. You are entitled to your beliefs and to disagree with me, though I don't feel you truly understand where I'm coming from. You seem to feel threatened which is not what I'm trying to do here. But then, a lot of staunch secularists need to feel like all of reality is knowable and quantifiable in order to feel secure in their world, so I would understand why you would be flying off the handle a little bit.

P.S. Using "WTF??" in response to someone's thoughtful replies is REALLY rude.