Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on May 07, 2017, 10:37:47 AM
-
Given this is the religion and ethics board and we are not limited to any compulsory philosophical natural view., what do people think souls are?
My own view is that a soul is what we can term the self. There should be no problem with this definition except perhaps from hard reductionists and the ''illusion of self'' cranks.
-
Given this is the religion and ethics board and we are not limited to any compulsory philosophical natural view., what do people think souls are?
My own view is that a soul is what we can term the self. There should be no problem with this definition except perhaps from hard reductionists and the ''illusion of self'' cranks.
What do you mean by 'self'?
-
I am of the opinion 'soul' is just another term for consciousness, which make us the individuals we are.
-
What do you mean by 'self'?
The fully subjectively aware spiritual and emergent, neuronal and synaptic and organised substrate which includes the subconscious philosophical zombie which does not completely define it...
...what do you mean by it?
-
An apology
Since I was thinking of hard reductionists and illusion of self -ists...
The title of this thread should perhaps read ''What Arse'oles!'' rather than ''What are souls?''
-
The fully subjectively aware spiritual and emergent, neuronal and synaptic and organised substrate which includes the subconscious philosophical zombie which does not completely define it...
...what do you mean by it?
Apart from having an inbuilt contradiction 'fully subjectively aware' and 'subconscious', what does spiritual mean here?
And as to your question, usually a non gender specific pronoun.
-
Apart from having an inbuilt contradiction 'fully subjectively aware' and 'subconscious'
If that were a legitimate objection one would I suppose have to exclude one's arms, spleen or gonads not part of your ''self''. Aren't you introducing dualism.
Spiritual is the immeasurable aspects of humanity and also perhaps that aspect of individual awareness which we can call ''not thou'' or ''not suddenly seeing the eyes through a sophisticated computer in another galaxy''.
-
I thought that it's theism that emphasizes dualism, isn't it? You get the body/soul split, and the material/spiritual split, and so on. Naturalism has various forms which are not dualistic, although some atheists seem to be, e.g. Chalmers. But this kind of dualism does not have the supernatural as one part. Having said that, I'm not very clued up about Chalmers.
One of the interesting ideas in Buddhism is the rejection of the separate self, which leaves room for an overall self. However, some reject that also, since some Buddhists reject nearly everything metaphysical. This appeals to the bloody-minded, although there is no mind to be bloody. What a laaf.
-
The four letters in our particular alphabet, s, o, u and l, form what is called a 'word'. This word is used in language to talk about one aspect of our personality/character, call it whatever you like - the word spirit would do just as well, but it uses up a fraction more energy to say it. The word, soul, enables us to think more directly about the aesthetic side of humans. We know that all our ideas, thoughts, images, etc emanate from our brains, themselves made of physical matter. Without the physical brain, functioning because we are alive and it has oxygen etc to enable it to work, we do not have life, let alone an aspect labelled 'soul'.
What it is NOT is something separate from the integrated human body.
\it is a useful word, but, like God, is entirely an idea in the brain.
Will that do?!!
-
I believe that 'soul' is a word which has a Germanic origin and meant 'life' as it arises within a life form and that 'spirit' also symbolises 'life' in a generalised way i.e. when it enters a life form that form is inspired and when it leaves, it expires and becomes a dead form.
-
If that were a legitimate objection one would I suppose have to exclude one's arms, spleen or gonads not part of your ''self''. Aren't you introducing dualism.
No, it's a legitimate issue of your definition you posited a thing being fully conscious and not fully conscious! I have no idea why you think that had anything to do with arms etc. And since it is your definition I am not introducing anything.
Spiritual is the immeasurable aspects of humanity and also perhaps that aspect of individual awareness which we can call ''not thou'' or ''not suddenly seeing the eyes through a sophisticated computer in another galaxy''.
What are the 'immeasurable aspects of humanity'? As to the rest of the suggestion, I don't see it makes any sense.
-
Given this is the religion and ethics board and we are not limited to any compulsory philosophical natural view., what do people think souls are?
My own view is that a soul is what we can term the self. There should be no problem with this definition except perhaps from hard reductionists and the ''illusion of self'' cranks.
Equating soul to self sounds ok to me, although self is hard to pin down. Given that you recognise the nature of self as being emergent, therein lies its illusory quality. It is illusory in that we think of ourselves as persons, primarily, yet the self is not fundamental, it is derivative, emergent, and forever changing, hence hard to pin down.
-
Soul the part of the human which never dies. The spirit leaves the body at death the soul the living consciousness...maybe?
-
Equating soul to self sounds ok to me, although self is hard to pin down. Given that you recognise the nature of self as being emergent, therein lies its illusory quality. It is illusory in that we think of ourselves as persons, primarily, yet the self is not fundamental, it is derivative, emergent, and forever changing, hence hard to pin down.
Depending upon what is meant by 'self', I think from certain religious perspectives 'soul' and 'self' are not the same. The 'soul' is considered 'spiritual' and selfless and derived from a divine spirit or Holy Spirit which is changeless and eternal. The 'self' is derived from inherited animal behaviour patterns and is considered 'self' centred and selfish and, as you say, changeable.
-
It seems to me apt that words like 'soul' and 'spiritual' remain forever slippery and ill-defined, as they refer to something essentially mysterious at the heart of our lived experience that we cannot pin down. I worry more when people insist that these words have a clear definition or else they are meaningless. These are poetic images, not scientific descriptions.
-
It seems to me apt that words like 'soul' and 'spiritual' remain forever slippery and ill-defined, as they refer to something essentially mysterious at the heart of our lived experience that we cannot pin down. I worry more when people insist that these words have a clear definition or else they are meaningless. These are poetic images, not scientific descriptions.
Alan Burns doesn't use soul as poetry.
-
That's his privilege and precisely why no single definition will do. People see things differently.
-
That's his privilege and precisely why no single definition will do. People see things differently.
Agreed but that's why you need to engage with what they mean. It's not about a single definition. It's that so often the person cannot explain what they mean in any logically coherent form.
-
I think it's in the nature of the beast that such words may defy any kind of logically coherent explanation and the mistake may be to expect one. Logic strikes me as the wrong tool for the job. Having said that, if someone wants to argue that their position on souls is logical and clearly communicable to others then they should expect to come up with the goods.
-
I think it's in the nature of the beast that such words may defy any kind of logically coherent explanation and the mistake may be to expect one. Logic strikes me as the wrong tool for the job. Having said that, if someone wants to argue that their position on souls is logical and clearly communicable to others then they should expect to come up with the goods.
a definition that is not logically coherent is white noise.
-
Indeed. That's why it's a mistake to try to define such words.
-
Indeed. That's why it's a mistake to try to define such words.
Then the words are white noise and to quote Wittgenstein "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"
-
See my first post. If that doesn't help, have a cup of tea and move on.
-
See my first post. If that doesn't help, have a cup of tea and move on.
huggrt jummotou gaseklvir buntejcop
-
I said tea.
-
Indeed. That's why it's a mistake to try to define such words.
That's also why children should never be told that a 'soul' or a 'spirit' is a real thing. It is a word to describe an aspect of us.
-
A lot of the problems with soul and self stem from seeing them as actual entities. I don't know whether Descartes is the cause of this, as Arry the Bottle said that soul is the form of the body. I can see something in that, but for AB soul is like the Fat Controller, in charge of all the engines.
-
I said tea.
I took that as poetrea.
-
That's also why children should never be told that a 'soul' or a 'spirit' is a real thing. It is a word to describe an aspect of us.
what 'aspect'?
-
Hi everyone,
Words evolve and their meaning changes with time. Often different people use it in different context. All this can add to the confusion.
The word 'soul' usually refers to that which leaves the body on death and lives on in the after world. In that sense, it is the eternal and non-corporeal entity that occupies the body and sheds it at the time of death. It can be called the Self.
That is simple enough but the moment we start analyzing it further (as with anything else) it becomes complicated.
According to Yogic science.....what leaves the body during death is not a simple 'one person'. It is a complex entity consisting of many sheaths. The innermost being is the real Self which can be called the Spirit.
These sheaths consist of various mental energies that envelope the Spirit and force it to be reborn. As the strength and intensity of these sheaths reduce over several life times, the Spirit gets freed and while attaining mukti (salvation) the spirit leaves the body with almost no sheaths attached. It is thereafter not reincarnated.
This spirit is ultimately identified with the Supreme Being itself.
So...we can perhaps think of the soul as the Spirit enveloped in several sheaths that leaves the body and gets reincarnated. It can be identified with the individual self. The Spirit being the ultimate Self or subject that gets freedom and is beyond individual traits.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
what 'aspect'?
The aesthetic appreciation aspect; the aspect of being a human which imagines, loves stories, music, singing, moving to music, the aspect that enables us to know we exist; and the aspect that ends with the whole integrated body/brain, i.e. death.
-
The aesthetic appreciation aspect; the aspect of being a human which imagines, loves stories, music, singing, moving to music, the aspect that enables us to know we exist; and the aspect that ends with the whole integrated body/brain, i.e. death.
And why do you want to seperate that as something 'other'?
-
Hi everyone,
Words evolve and their meaning changes with time. Often different people use it in different context. All this can add to the confusion.
The word 'soul' usually refers to that which leaves the body on death and lives on in the after world. In that sense, it is the eternal and non-corporeal entity that occupies the body and sheds it at the time of death. It can be called the Self.
That is simple enough but the moment we start analyzing it further (as with anything else) it becomes complicated.
According to Yogic science.....what leaves the body during death is not a simple 'one person'. It is a complex entity consisting of many sheaths. The innermost being is the real Self which can be called the Spirit.
These sheaths consist of various mental energies that envelope the Spirit and force it to be reborn. As the strength and intensity of these sheaths reduces over several life times, the Spirit gets freed and during mukti (salvation) the spirit leaves the body with almost no sheaths attached. It thereafter is not reincarnated.
This spirit is ultimately identified with the Supreme Being itself.
So...we can perhaps think of the soul as the Spirit enveloped in several sheaths that leaves the body and gets reincarnated. It can be identified with the individual self. The Spirit being the ultimate Self or subject that gets freedom and is beyond individual traits.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
So, Bramble, is this Sriram being poetic?
-
And why do you want to seperate that as something 'other'?
How on earth do you get the idea that I want to separate it as 'something other'?
-
How on earth do you get the idea that I want to separate it as 'something other'?
By the fact that you seem to want to define it as different from feeling hungry, liking Marmite, wanting to punch someone.
-
By the fact that you seem to want to define it as different from feeling hungry, liking Marmite, wanting to punch someone.
I am an integrated whole. All physical parts of me, all emotional feelings, reactions, sensations, are an integrated part of me.
Various parts of me can be removed or replaced which enable me to carry on living, All these parts have words to label them, all thought up by humans, otherwise we would not be able to talk about them.
-
I am an integrated whole. All physical parts of me, all emotional feelings, reactions, sensations, are an integrated part of me.
Various parts of me can be removed or replaced which enable me to carry on living, All these parts have words to label them, all thought up by humans, otherwise we would not be able to talk about them.
That's a non sequitur
-
That's a non sequitur
That doesn't make it not true!
-
That doesn't make it not true!
Just irrelevant
-
I am an integrated whole. All physical parts of me, all emotional feelings, reactions, sensations, are an integrated part of me.
Various parts of me can be removed or replaced which enable me to carry on living, All these parts have words to label them, all thought up by humans, otherwise we would not be able to talk about them.
I don't see myself as an integrated whole, except physically, and that is fraying at the edges. Mental stuff is not integrated really, so the idea of a soul must be attractive, as it seems to bring control and unification. How do I find it?
-
and the ''illusion of self'' cranks.
Well, that's the whole of Buddhism dismissed.
(Except for the idea of an overall Self, as wiggi pointed out earlier. As in Hinduism: "Brahman is the only reincarnator".
-
I don't see myself as an integrated whole, except physically, and that is fraying at the edges. Mental stuff is not integrated really, so the idea of a soul must be attractive, as it seems to bring control and unification. How do I find it?
You need to reach the 'Clear', wiggi. Sort out those Thetans. I'm sure there's a branch of Hubbard's love-child near you.
-
You need to reach the 'Clear', wiggi. Sort out those Thetans. I'm sure there's a branch of Hubbard's love-child near you.
The Jungians have the interesting idea of deintegration/reintegration. Or sort of, going to pieces, and then reassembling them, well, I've done that a few times in my life. They sometimes use the image of islands, which form an archipelago.
-
I don't see myself as an integrated whole, except physically, and that is fraying at the edges. Mental stuff is not integrated really, so the idea of a soul must be attractive, as it seems to bring control and unification. How do I find it?
Agree, the casual use of soul seems an indulgent avoidance of methodological naturalism by those scared of the implications.
-
The Jungians have the interesting idea of deintegration/reintegration. Or sort of, going to pieces, and then reassembling them, well, I've done that a few times in my life. They sometimes use the image of islands, which form an archipelago.
Thus hypothesising an original integrated self? I think Gurdjieff used to promote the idea that the self was never an original unity - only something to be achieved.
Like you, I've done what seemed like a fair amount of reassemblage during my life.
-
I don't see myself as an integrated whole, except physically, and that is fraying at the edges. Mental stuff is not integrated really, so the idea of a soul must be attractive, as it seems to bring control and unification. How do I find it?
One way is said to be by withdrawing one's attentive consciousness within, in stillness, until you realise that you are it. Another is by detaching one's consciousness from it's attachments to the constituent components of the self/ego i.e. the physical, mental and emotional components, until you realise that you are not them. I believe within the Hindu tradition the first is called eti, eti ... I am that, I am that and the latter is called neti, neti .... I am not that, I am not that.
-
Thus hypothesising an original integrated self? I think Gurdjieff used to promote the idea that the self was never an original unity - only something to be achieved.
Like you, I've done what seemed like a fair amount of reassemblage during my life.
Actually, it is both preexisting and also something to be achieved. The real Self is hidden and masked by the lower self. Through repeated experiences the lower self is to be eroded bit by bit and the Higher Self is to be brought out and realized.
In this sense, the Higher Self is both preexisting and also something to be realized or achieved. There is no contradiction.
-
Thus hypothesising an original integrated self? I think Gurdjieff used to promote the idea that the self was never an original unity - only something to be achieved.
Like you, I've done what seemed like a fair amount of reassemblage during my life.
The expert on this in Jungian circles was Michael Forham, who I think posited an initial state of infant with mother, involving blissful unity, feeding at the breast, having one's needs met, being loved and held. However, as we all know, this can rapidly break down into feelings of chaos, fear, anger, and so on, or in fact, never got going because of parental failure. This is a kind of deintegration, which involves loss, yet is also necessary, if eventually you are to become separate. In fact, separation and intimacy are twin poles here, and obviously we need both. But some people get too much deintegration, and cannot function properly. Of course, some people have suggested that the early bliss is the source of religious feelings, loss of boundaries, and even the notion of God. Who knows.
-
Equating soul to self sounds ok to me, although self is hard to pin down. Given that you recognise the nature of self as being emergent, therein lies its illusory quality.
Are you equating the emergent with the illusiory? On what warrant?
-
Equating soul to self sounds ok to me, although self is hard to pin down. Given that you recognise the nature of self as being emergent, therein lies its illusory quality. It is illusory in that we think of ourselves as persons, primarily, yet the self is not fundamental, it is derivative, emergent, and forever changing, hence hard to pin down.
Again isn't this just hard reductionism?
What is it that is being illuded and stubbornly refusing to accept it's own non existence?
-
Arry the Bottle said that soul is the form of the body. I can see something in that, but for AB soul is like the Fat Controller
So the soul is the form of MY body
-
Agree, the casual use of soul seems an indulgent avoidance of methodological naturalism by those scared of the implications.
Straw men Sane?
-
So the soul is the form of MY body
Yeah, but Arry baggsed it first.
-
Straw men Sane?
No. You seem to both dismiss scientific findings, and hypocitically people's experience that you don't share.
-
No. You seem to both dismiss scientific findings, and hypocitically people's experience that you don't share.
Which findings and what experiences?
-
Agree, the casual use of soul seems an indulgent avoidance of methodological naturalism by those scared of the implications.
I hesitate to ask, but what 'implications'?
-
Are you equating the emergent with the illusiory? On what warrant?
The self/soul feels fundamental, but it isn't, it is emergent; something that is emergent and derivative cannot be fundamental, but we experience our self as something fundamental and irreducible and constant. We feel like persons, but in fact, persons are derivative. A person derives from a body, so when the body goes away, so does the person.
-
The self/soul feels fundamental, but it isn't, it is emergent; something that is emergent and derivative cannot be fundamental, but we experience our self as something fundamental and irreducible and constant. We feel like persons, but in fact, persons are derivative. A person derives from a body, so when the body goes away, so does the person.
Let's suppose you are right.The question remains what is it which is illuded and what is it that refuses to feel unreal.
But suppose you are wrong and still have to not only equate emergent with illusionary but now that list includes the non fundamental, the reducible, and the non constant. In what way are they illusionary. Do you see the issue with your reductionist approach and it's actual disrespect of concepts such as emergence.
-
The self/soul feels fundamental, but it isn't, it is emergent; something that is emergent and derivative cannot be fundamental, but we experience our self as something fundamental and irreducible and constant. We feel like persons, but in fact, persons are derivative. A person derives from a body, so when the body goes away, so does the person.
torridon,
You keep stating that as though it is a fact. It is not.
It is just your opinion (maybe a hypothesis) that the self is an emergent property of the body. There are other opinions and hypothesis, as I have pointed out above, which have alternative views on the matter.
-
What are souls?
IMO it's the essence of everything that makes us, us.
Whether it exists after death is debatable.
Sometimes when people suffer from dementia they have moments when " they come back" sometimes before death. IMO it's something that is an essence of a person and sometimes even with brain damage you can get a glimpse of it, even though most of the time it might not be seen.
It's the essence of a person, personality, experiences things that make them who they are.
Their essence, is the best way I can think of, for describing it.
Looking on the internet, looking for what I was trying to describe I saw this
http://www.movinginwithdementia.com/2011/11/alzheimers-and-soul.html
-
torridon,
You keep stating that as though it is a fact. It is not.
It is just your opinion (maybe a hypothesis) that the self is an emergent property of the body. There are other opinions and hypothesis, as I have pointed out above, which have alternative views on the matter.
It is what the evidence suggests, shall we say, then. And it chimes with my own personal experience of life.
-
As Torridon says. It is what the evidence points to.
There is NO EVIDENCE for anything else. Just daydreams.
-
Let's suppose you are right.The question remains what is it which is illuded and what is it that refuses to feel unreal.
But suppose you are wrong and still have to not only equate emergent with illusionary but now that list includes the non fundamental, the reducible, and the non constant. In what way are they illusionary. Do you see the issue with your reductionist approach and it's actual disrespect of concepts such as emergence.
Not quite sure where disrespect of emergence comes from, sometimes I think I need lessons in Vladish to get what you are saying. But moving on, consider the emergence of intelligence in a bee swarm. A one million neuron bee is not so smart; granted it may be somewhat smarter than your average creationist, but that aside, a million bee swarm can make much smarter decisions on finding a nest site than a single bee. Where exactly is that intelligence ? It is hard, if not impossible, to put a spatial location on the focus of that intelligence. Similarly, I find it difficult to identify a spatial location for my self. Do I know always know the exact location and circumstances of every decision made ?
I was just reading about the eye fluke Diplostomum pseudospathaceum, which for part of its life cycle lives as a parasite inside the eyeball of freshwater fish, from where, somehow, it controls the behaviour of the fish, altering it such that the fish is more easily predated which enables the fluke to get into its next host. From what we have come to understand from cognitive research, I would bet that the fish does not know it is being controlled, it is probably unaware it is hosting a parasite, yet its choices are altered to suit the parasite. Human persons too are not just vastly complex organisms, we are walking ecosystems of bacteria, viruses and parasites and all these symbiotic flora feed into our thoughts and influence our moods, so when 'we' make a decision, it is not just a question of competing neuronal assemblies, rather it is a composite decision of billions of intimately interacting organisms, a wisdom of crowds in a sense. So when I make a decision, what exactly is its provenance and its location ? What the research suggests, is that rather like the poor river trout, unaware of the provenance of its decisions, we too are somewhat in the grip of a bigger population, unaware of the incalculable goings on below the level of our consciousness, but our conscious self is a cerebral mechanism for claiming ownership and responsibility for those decisions, and this is a profoundly important plank of personhood; it is not just about a continuity of identity that transcends the constant turnover of bodily cells, it is also about the feeling of ownership and control over decisions that arise out of this great big working biological system. This is why I think we have a conscious self, it is about empowerment at the level of the entire system.
-
torridon #62
Super post - as usual. wouldn't it be lovely if Vlad actually read and agreed!
-
torridon #62
Super post - as usual. wouldn't it be lovely if Vlad actually read and agreed!
That will be the day! ;D
-
Not quite sure where disrespect of emergence comes from, sometimes I think I need lessons in Vladish to get what you are saying. But moving on, consider the emergence of intelligence in a bee swarm. A one million neuron bee is not so smart; granted it may be somewhat smarter than your average creationist, but that aside, a million bee swarm can make much smarter decisions on finding a nest site than a single bee. Where exactly is that intelligence ? It is hard, if not impossible, to put a spatial location on the focus of that intelligence. Similarly, I find it difficult to identify a spatial location for my self. Do I know always know the exact location and circumstances of every decision made ?
I was just reading about the eye fluke Diplostomum pseudospathaceum, which for part of its life cycle lives as a parasite inside the eyeball of freshwater fish, from where, somehow, it controls the behaviour of the fish, altering it such that the fish is more easily predated which enables the fluke to get into its next host. From what we have come to understand from cognitive research, I would bet that the fish does not know it is being controlled, it is probably unaware it is hosting a parasite, yet its choices are altered to suit the parasite. Human persons too are not just vastly complex organisms, we are walking ecosystems of bacteria, viruses and parasites and all these symbiotic flora feed into our thoughts and influence our moods, so when 'we' make a decision, it is not just a question of competing neuronal assemblies, rather it is a composite decision of billions of intimately interacting organisms, a wisdom of crowds in a sense. So when I make a decision, what exactly is its provenance and its location ? What the research suggests, is that rather like the poor river trout, unaware of the provenance of its decisions, we too are somewhat in the grip of a bigger population, unaware of the incalculable goings on below the level of our consciousness, but our conscious self is a cerebral mechanism for claiming ownership and responsibility for those decisions, and this is a profoundly important plank of personhood; it is not just about a continuity of identity that transcends the constant turnover of bodily cells, it is also about the feeling of ownership and control over decisions that arise out of this great big working biological system. This is why I think we have a conscious self, it is about empowerment at the level of the entire system.
torridon,
We humans are influenced by various factors including microbes, other parasites, magnetic impulses, solar storms, phases of the moon etc etc. That is true.
But it is also true that life has a pattern in spite of all these multifarious influences. We and our lives do not get randomly jostled hither and thither because of all these factors. Life is organised, fairly predictable and we manage to have clear objectives not only in our personal lives but also as a species.
In fact, globally we are more and more united and integrated than ever before. Our goals are clear, our morality is clear, our understanding of the world is fairly uniform.
Does it really seem as though we humans are indirectly and unconsciously at the mercy of bacteria and parasites in our gut?!! I don't think so! Whatever the hidden influences of these parasites and microbes, it certainly does not seem to be conflicting with human moral and ethical norms or our life objectives.
I think I have discussed the Unconscious mind many times here. Whatever happenings, decisions, insights and influences that we are being subjected to in our lives through unconscious means...they are clearly because of some knowledgeable and more informed source than our conscious mind. It certainly cannot be done by microbes!!
-
Not quite sure where disrespect of emergence comes from, sometimes I think I need lessons in Vladish to get what you are saying. But moving on, consider the emergence of intelligence in a bee swarm. A one million neuron bee is not so smart; granted it may be somewhat smarter than your average creationist, but that aside, a million bee swarm can make much smarter decisions on finding a nest site than a single bee. Where exactly is that intelligence ? It is hard, if not impossible, to put a spatial location on the focus of that intelligence. Similarly, I find it difficult to identify a spatial location for my self. Do I know always know the exact location and circumstances of every decision made ?
I was just reading about the eye fluke Diplostomum pseudospathaceum, which for part of its life cycle lives as a parasite inside the eyeball of freshwater fish, from where, somehow, it controls the behaviour of the fish, altering it such that the fish is more easily predated which enables the fluke to get into its next host. From what we have come to understand from cognitive research, I would bet that the fish does not know it is being controlled, it is probably unaware it is hosting a parasite, yet its choices are altered to suit the parasite. Human persons too are not just vastly complex organisms, we are walking ecosystems of bacteria, viruses and parasites and all these symbiotic flora feed into our thoughts and influence our moods, so when 'we' make a decision, it is not just a question of competing neuronal assemblies, rather it is a composite decision of billions of intimately interacting organisms, a wisdom of crowds in a sense. So when I make a decision, what exactly is its provenance and its location ? What the research suggests, is that rather like the poor river trout, unaware of the provenance of its decisions, we too are somewhat in the grip of a bigger population, unaware of the incalculable goings on below the level of our consciousness, but our conscious self is a cerebral mechanism for claiming ownership and responsibility for those decisions, and this is a profoundly important plank of personhood; it is not just about a continuity of identity that transcends the constant turnover of bodily cells, it is also about the feeling of ownership and control over decisions that arise out of this great big working biological system. This is why I think we have a conscious self, it is about empowerment at the level of the entire system.
The observed "intelligence" in a bee swarm, or the control exerted by the parasite do not go any way to explain conscious awareness, because there is no conscious awareness of what is going on in the bee swarm or the parasite behaviour other than what is observed through human eyes. What you describe is merely intuitive behaviour developed through evolutionary means. No conscious awareness involved.
-
The observed "intelligence" in a bee swarm, or the control exerted by the parasite do not go any way to explain conscious awareness, because there is no conscious awareness of what is going on in the bee swarm or the parasite behaviour other than what is observed through human eyes. What you describe is merely intuitive behaviour developed through evolutionary means. No conscious awareness involved.
So you say, but you don't know that for a fact.
-
So you say, but you don't know that for a fact.
and a big hello to the Negative Proof Fallacy
-
torridon,
We humans are influenced by various factors including microbes, other parasites, magnetic impulses, solar storms, phases of the moon etc etc. That is true.
But it is also true that life has a pattern in spite of all these multifarious influences. We and our lives do not get randomly jostled hither and thither because of all these factors. Life is organised, fairly predictable and we manage to have clear objectives not only in our personal lives but also as a species.
In fact, globally we are more and more united and integrated than ever before. Our goals are clear, our morality is clear, our understanding of the world is fairly uniform.
Does it really seem as though we humans are indirectly and unconsciously at the mercy of bacteria and parasites in our gut?!! I don't think so! Whatever the hidden influences of these parasites and microbes, it certainly does not seem to be conflicting with human moral and ethical norms or our life objectives.
I think I have discussed the Unconscious mind many times here. Whatever happenings, decisions, insights and influences that we are being subjected to in our lives through unconscious means...they are clearly because of some knowledgeable and more informed source than our conscious mind. It certainly cannot be done by microbes!!
The case of parasitic control is clearly an extreme example. But it illustrates a more general and profound truth, that what we are, is far more complex than we commonly think; our symbiotic flora have intimate relationship with us that goes far beyond helping us digest our food; parasites have influenced human evolution; there is evidence that our intelligence derives in part from ancient viruses - genes from ancient viral insertions in our DNA are thought to be involved in the construction of cortex. All this speaks to the underlying connectedness of all life, and what we think of our self is derived from the entire population of cohabiting organisms and is only truly valid at a moment in time. Incessant change and the interconnectedness of all things, here endeth the lesson for today ;)
-
The observed "intelligence" in a bee swarm, or the control exerted by the parasite do not go any way to explain conscious awareness, because there is no conscious awareness of what is going on in the bee swarm or the parasite behaviour other than what is observed through human eyes. What you describe is merely intuitive behaviour developed through evolutionary means. No conscious awareness involved.
if you read the post, you would understand I was making the point that the river trout is (most likely) unaware of the fact that its choices are being determined by another creature without its knowledge. And so presumably it can also be to some extent with humans - we are all unaware of the subliminal preconscious machinations that result in human choice; the implication being that the point of having a conscious self is not so much to make choices, but to serve as a focal point in terms of overall continuing identity for an incessantly changing complex biological system and which focal point it seems is also ascribed apparent ownership of significant decisions made within the system.
-
The case of parasitic control is clearly an extreme example. But it illustrates a more general and profound truth, that what we are, is far more complex than we commonly think; our symbiotic flora have intimate relationship with us that goes far beyond helping us digest our food; parasites have influenced human evolution; there is evidence that our intelligence derives in part from ancient viruses - genes from ancient viral insertions in our DNA are thought to be involved in the construction of cortex. All this speaks to the underlying connectedness of all life, and what we think of our self is derived from the entire population of cohabiting organisms and is only truly valid at a moment in time. Incessant change and the interconnectedness of all things, here endeth the lesson for today ;)
From, let's say, the mystic's point of view, it is a question of identity. If you identify with a physical body or mind then the observation will be that of complexity. The way of the mystic is often an inner path to simplicity where identity ceases and a changeless centre is discovered in the midst of change, and union (or one-ness) replaces interconnectedness of things. Here endeth the second lesson. ;)
-
The Jungians have the interesting idea of deintegration/reintegration. Or sort of, going to pieces, and then reassembling them, well, I've done that a few times in my life. They sometimes use the image of islands, which form an archipelago.
Yes, the reassembling is something I relate to hugely. I think I'm largely unrecognisable from who I was five or six years ago but I had to break for that to happen. I was reading something by Mark Epstein recently about trauma being the conduit for growth.
-
torridon #62
Super post - as usual. wouldn't it be lovely if Vlad actually read and agreed!
Entirely non sequitur to what I have requested and since that renders me unable to either agree or disagree with him, that makes your observations off the mark, too.
-
The case of parasitic control is clearly an extreme example. But it illustrates a more general and profound truth, that what we are, is far more complex than we commonly think; our symbiotic flora have intimate relationship with us that goes far beyond helping us digest our food; parasites have influenced human evolution; there is evidence that our intelligence derives in part from ancient viruses - genes from ancient viral insertions in our DNA are thought to be involved in the construction of cortex. All this speaks to the underlying connectedness of all life, and what we think of our self is derived from the entire population of cohabiting organisms and is only truly valid at a moment in time. Incessant change and the interconnectedness of all things, here endeth the lesson for today ;)
Yes...our body is extremely complex with genes, epigenes, microbiome, parasites and many other things. Everything in Nature is interconnected is also obvious. The ecological system shows that.
But none of this prevents the existence of a soul or a spirit or the many complexities of spiritual existence. That is a separate phenomenon and there is enough evidence in terms of NDE's and other paranormal phenomena.
We cannot simply say... it is all very complex and therefore there is no soul! ::)
-
Nothing complicated about the idea of a soul, it's just another piece of man made superstitious nonsense; unworthy of any serious discussion.
Anything else you want to know Vlad you only need to ask.
Regards ippy
-
Anything else you want to know Vlad you only need to ask.
Yes....but whom?
-
What are souls?
As a Christian, you must surely know what your religion says a soul is. Why don't you tell us what you think a soul is and then we can start talking about how we would show you are right or wrong.
-
As a Christian, you must surely know what your religion says a soul is. Why don't you tell us what you think a soul is and then we can start talking about how we would show you are right or wrong.
The church has accrued much from its medieval phase including the popular description of the soul.
The NT on the other hand talks about resurrection.
I think the soul is the self something which is truly emergent from a mechanistic substrate.
-
The church has accrued much from its medieval phase including the popular description of the soul.
The NT on the other hand talks about resurrection.
I think the soul is the self something which is truly emergent from a mechanistic substrate.
It's just a man made idea Vlad, nothing complicated about it; it's all in the mind, just forget about it, try looking for something usefull.
ippy
-
I think the soul is the self something which is truly emergent from a mechanistic substrate.
Yes I think I'd go along with that. It is the still popular notion that a soul is something distinct and independent and not derived from a body but inhabiting it, which lacks justification.
-
Yes I think I'd go along with that. It is the still popular notion that a soul is something distinct and independent and not derived from a body but inhabiting it, which lacks justification.
But in being truly emergent it becomes independent in a certain sense.
-
But in being truly emergent it becomes independent in a certain sense.
I think you'd need to reflect on what you mean by in a certain sense, then
-
I think you'd need to reflect on what you mean by in a certain sense, then
It sounds as though you are proposing some semi emergence.
The independence of the soul is one of its emergent qualities.
If you really agree that the soul is truly emergent you have to join me in the reflection yourself.
-
It sounds as though you are proposing some semi emergence.
The independence of the soul is one of its emergent qualities.
If you really agree that the soul is truly emergent you have to join me in the reflection yourself.
Sounds like you are intent on having a cake and eating it too. I don't think something can be both truly independent and truly emergent. Something that is emergent is dependent ultimately on its underlying substrate.
-
Sounds like you are intent on having a cake and eating it too. I don't think something can be both truly independent and truly emergent. Something that is emergent is dependent ultimately on its underlying substrate.
By definition, the soul is an independent entity that occupies the body and experiences the world for its development.
If someone does not believe in any such entity as the Soul, that is a different matter. But the Soul is not emergent from the body.
-
By definition, the soul is an independent entity that occupies the body and experiences the world for its development.
If someone does not believe in any such entity as the Soul, that is a different matter. But the Soul is not emergent from the body.
Your idea of the soul is not credible, imo.
-
By definition, the soul is an independent entity that occupies the body and experiences the world for its development.
If someone does not believe in any such entity as the Soul, that is a different matter. But the Soul is not emergent from the body.
Definitions vary, it seems, depending on the tradition. Clearly there is a difference between your position and Vlad's here.
-
By definition, the soul is an independent entity that occupies the body and experiences the world for its development.
If someone does not believe in any such entity as the Soul, that is a different matter. But the Soul is not emergent from the body.
Got any thoughts on ectoplasm Sriram?
ippy
-
Sounds like you are intent on having a cake and eating it too. I don't think something can be both truly independent and truly emergent. Something that is emergent is dependent ultimately on its underlying substrate.
I'm afraid the reductionist paradigm has such a powerful hold that i find it hard to articulate the de facto difficulties it has with emergence.
It appears that you are a substrateist to rather than an organisationalist. In other words to you the nature of the neuron is more important than the organisation in explaining the nature of the emergent quality. I actually think it's worse and the emergent property is truly in its existence different and unconnected with the property of both substrate and organisation
-
I'm afraid the reductionist paradigm has such a powerful hold that i find it hard to articulate the de facto difficulties it has with emergence.
It appears that you are a substrateist to rather than an organisationalist. In other words to you the nature of the neuron is more important than the organisation in explaining the nature of the emergent quality. I actually think it's worse and the emergent property is truly in its existence different and unconnected with the property of both substrate and organisation
How do you justify that ? Things that are emergent have to emerge from something, that is implied in the word, they cannot be unconnected. Could you build a house without lots of building blocks ? Could we find an ecosystem that had no living things inside it ?
-
How do you justify that ? Things that are emergent have to emerge from something, that is implied in the word, they cannot be unconnected. Could you build a house without lots of building blocks ? Could we find an ecosystem that had no living things inside it ?
Yes I have no argument about the connection.....But what is it? A wheel and a crank are joined together by a crankshaft. But what is the link? Another level of organisation?
Also how do we go from the connection to the emergent property which must be separate?
At the moment we have nothing but the emergent just appearing without adequate explanation from the previous level which does not have the property. Particularly in the case of consciousness. We are therefore in a very real sense left with something hanging there.
These, so far, are the facts of the matter and so far any complaint about it from the reductionist is from dogma.
I am not against a direct connection from the previous level but I am not convinced by your ''take it on trust'' approach.
-
Yes I have no argument about the connection.....But what is it? A wheel and a crank are joined together by a crankshaft. But what is the link? Another level of organisation?
Also how do we go from the connection to the emergent property which must be separate?
At the moment we have nothing but the emergent just appearing without adequate explanation from the previous level which does not have the property. Particularly in the case of consciousness. We are therefore in a very real sense left with something hanging there.
These, so far, are the facts of the matter and so far any complaint about it from the reductionist is from dogma.
I am not against a direct connection from the previous level but I am not convinced by your ''take it on trust'' approach.
What you see as "take it on trust" is merely a pejorative take on the principle of following the evidence. It is better surely to witness to where the evidence is pointing rather than indulge some lesser attitude.
-
What you see as "take it on trust" is merely a pejorative take on the principle of following the evidence. It is better surely to witness to where the evidence is pointing rather than indulge some lesser attitude.
I was hoping for more from you than mere priestly support for the dogma and in this case the 'mystery'.
I can see that I am going to have to look elsewhere for a 'woo' free discussion..
-
Vlad,
I was hoping for more from you than mere priestly support for the dogma and in this case the 'mystery'.
I can see that I am going to have to look elsewhere for a 'woo' free discussion..
If you're going to look elsewhere can I suggest that you try one of the reputable sources on emergence to avoid further howlers when you dismiss it out of hand? Stephen Johnson's book is a good place to start, but there are other primers.
-
Where does this notion of "souls" originate?
-
Where does this notion of "souls" originate?
It did not originate in any one place. It has been there in all parts of the world.
Since ancient times, India, Egypt, Greece, China..... have all had their ideas of an after-life in which the essence of the person (the Self) leaves the body and migrates to another world.
-
Vlad,
If you're going to look elsewhere can I suggest that you try one of the reputable sources on emergence to avoid further howlers when you dismiss it out of hand? Stephen Johnson's book is a good place to start, but there are other primers.
What is it I am supposed to have dismissed?
Why is this a reputable source?......and Paul Davies articles, where he identified the conflict between an understanding of emergence and your warmed over reductionism, are disreputable. Have you read that? No?
-
So entrenched in folklore Sriram...like voodoo and shit?
-
It did not originate in any one place. It has been there in all parts of the world.
Since ancient times, India, Egypt, Greece, China..... have all had their ideas of an after-life in which the essence of the person (the Self) leaves the body and migrates to another world.
That's not really surprising, given that all ancient societies, were, eerrm, ancient, pre-science. I think we ought to be a bit more clued up by now.
-
That's not really surprising, given that all ancient societies, were, eerrm, ancient, pre-science. I think we ought to be a bit more clued up by now.
In the New Testament the Greek word 'psyche' was translated as 'soul'. We now have psychology, psychiatry, psychosomatic, psychotic etc.
-
The human psyche is created by the brain, no brain no psyche/soul. Some people seem to think the psyche/soul is separate to the brain, but have never explained in a coherent fashion where else in the body it is supposed to reside.
-
In the New Testament the Greek word 'psyche' was translated as 'soul'. We now have psychology, psychiatry, psychosomatic, psychotic etc.
Yes I get that. Traditionally, the soul was considered the fundamental essence of a person; the body was something that a person 'had'. Now that is reversing, it is a body that is fundamental, and a person/soul is derivative; a person is something that a body 'has'.
-
Yes I get that. Traditionally, the soul was considered the fundamental essence of a person; the body was something that a person 'had'. Now that is reversing, it is a body that is fundamental, and a person/soul is derivative; a person is something that a body 'has'.
No..its not reversing or anything of that sort. In fact there is now greater evidence through NDE's, for an after-life.
Science is just focusing more and more on the body and its mechanisms, while the ancients focused more on the soul because the body is temporal anyway.
-
So it's a construct to create something imagined to go somewhere imagined...
-
No..its not reversing or anything of that sort. In fact there is now greater evidence through NDE's, for an after-life.
He he, in your dreams, mate, in your dreams.
Meanwhile back in the real world ......
-
He he, in your dreams, mate, in your dreams.
Meanwhile back in the real world ......
What is the REAL world is the contention! You think it all starts with the body and that the soul is an emergent property. I think it all starts with the spirit/soul and the body is only a reflection of the soul.
-
What is the REAL world is the contention! You think it all starts with the body and that the soul is an emergent property. I think it all starts with the spirit/soul and the body is only a reflection of the soul.
And where exactly were all these souls before bodies evolved ?
-
And where exactly were all these souls before bodies evolved ?
.......and do they procreate? :-\
-
And where exactly were all these souls before bodies evolved ?
Such questions can be asked about anything. Infinite regress and initial origins are questions that don't go away in science either. How did the Singularity arise? How did all those energies and elementary particles arise from nothing?
-
Such questions can be asked about anything. Infinite regress and initial origins are questions that don't go away in science either. How did the Singularity arise? How did all those energies and elementary particles arise from nothing?
Is that a "don't know"?
-
Vlad,
What is it I am supposed to have dismissed?
Why is this a reputable source?......and Paul Davies articles, where he identified the conflict between an understanding of emergence and your warmed over reductionism, are disreputable. Have you read that? No?
Baby step Vlad, baby steps.
Start with what observably happens.
Here for example is a description of the way termite mounds harness solar power
“Termite mounds are meter-sized structures built by millimeter-sized insects. These structures provide climate-controlled microhabitats that buffer the organisms from strong environmental fluctuations and allow them to exchange energy, information, and matter with the outside world. By directly measuring the flow inside a mound, we show that diurnal ambient temperature oscillations drive cyclic flows that flush out CO2 from the nest and ventilate the mound. This swarm-built architecture demonstrates how work can be derived from the fluctuations of an intensive environmental parameter, and might serve as an inspiration and model for the design of passive, sustainable human architecture.”
Further details are here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/37/11589.full
Try as you might though, you’ll never find one termite with a hard hat and a roll of blueprints, or another assiduously designing a solar “lung” on his laptop. Rather the properties described in the article emerge from the much simpler components that are the termites and their behaviours.
That’s why your:
I actually think it's worse and the emergent property is truly in its existence different and unconnected with the property of both substrate and organisation
...is so wide of the mark. The emergent property is fundamentally dependent on and connected to “both substrate and organisation”.
If there weren’t termites there’s be no termite mounds!
-
Vlad,
Baby step Vlad, baby steps.
Start with what observably happens.
Here for example is a description of the way termite mounds harness solar power
“Termite mounds are meter-sized structures built by millimeter-sized insects. These structures provide climate-controlled microhabitats that buffer the organisms from strong environmental fluctuations and allow them to exchange energy, information, and matter with the outside world. By directly measuring the flow inside a mound, we show that diurnal ambient temperature oscillations drive cyclic flows that flush out CO2 from the nest and ventilate the mound. This swarm-built architecture demonstrates how work can be derived from the fluctuations of an intensive environmental parameter, and might serve as an inspiration and model for the design of passive, sustainable human architecture.”
Further details are here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/37/11589.full
Try as you might though, you’ll never find one termite with a hard hat and a roll of blueprints, or another assiduously designing a solar “lung” on his laptop. Rather the properties described in the article emerge from the much simpler components that are the termites and their behaviours.
No problem with that......just how, in the case of an emergent property is that particular property connected with the previous organisational level which doesn't demonstrate that property...given that an emergent property is not lots of little properties all added together?
Do you know?
You have accused me of dismissing something, Hillside.....again I shall type this slowly for you......what is it I am supposed to be dismissing?
-
Vlad,
No problem with that......just how, in the case of an emergent property is that particular property connected with the previous organisational level which doesn't demonstrate that property...given that an emergent property is not lots of little properties all added together?
Do you know?
Actually yes, but we were taking baby steps remember?
The point here is that emergent properties – ie, properties more complex than the sum of their components – do occur, and that’s all that’s necessary for this purpose. There’s no mystical quality about consciousness that would exempt it from that basic model, and the prevailing reasoning and evidence we do have suggests that it probably does.
If your response to that is, “Yes, but I don’t see how that works exactly…(therefore it doesn’t)” that’s just the argument from personal incredulity – a basic fallacy. How emergence works is interesting in its own right but it has nothing to say to the fact that it observably does, and moreover that it depends on its constituent parts to occur.
You have accused me of dismissing something, Hillside.....again I shall type this slowly for you......what is it I am supposed to be dismissing?
Bottom up emergence, inextricably connected to its component parts (“I actually think it's worse and the emergent property is truly in its existence different and unconnected with the property of both substrate and organisation”).
(Bit rich by the way you complaining about a non-answer given your history of running away from pretty much every question put to you, but there you go.)
-
Vlad,
Actually yes, but we were taking baby steps remember?
The point here is that emergent properties – ie, properties more complex than the sum of their components – do occur, and that’s all that’s necessary for this purpose. There’s no mystical quality about consciousness that would exempt it from that basic model, and the prevailing reasoning and evidence we do have suggests that it probably does.
If your response to that is, “Yes, but I don’t see how that works exactly…(therefore it doesn’t)” that’s just the argument from personal incredulity – a basic fallacy. How emergence works is interesting in its own right but it has nothing to say to the fact that it observably does, and moreover that it depends on its constituent parts to occur.
Bottom up emergence, inextricably connected to its component parts (“I actually think it's worse and the emergent property is truly in its existence different and unconnected with the property of both substrate and organisation”).
(Bit rich by the way you complaining about a non-answer given your history of running away from pretty much every question put to you, but there you go.)
You are just quoting examples of emergence.
The only emergence from any bottom is your definition coming from your own.
An emergent property is a novelty not demonstrated by any components at the previous organisation. Otherwise it is ''more of the same.''
Of course if those components were not there, there would be nothing to emerge from, however the emergent property is definitionally a novelty.
This might help....Paragraph 3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
If you can explain one example of how an emergent property is explicable completely in terms of the previous level I think you deserve a prize. Your present pretence of explaining any emergent by a reductionist approach does not however deserve plaudit.
Go on then.
Vis Paul Davies he was writing when reductionists baulked at the word. You demonstrate that todays mechanistic dinosaurs reductionists merely seem to have pirated the expression.
-
Vlad,
I've tried to reply to you several times but keep getting this message when I do for some reason:
"Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /index.php on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request."
I have no idea what this means or why it's happening.
-
But the last post did work so presumably there's something in the formatting of the text I've been trying to post that this site doesn't like?
-
But the last post did work so presumably there's something in the formatting of the text I've been trying to post that this site doesn't like?
The overall server seems to have issues with certain words/phrases. It is all a bit random and not something we control. It doesn't loke some combinations of words on 'sex" and also some branding on medicine.
And you can get round it if you put spaces in if you work out what is triggering it.
-
NS,
The overall server seems to have issues with certain words/phrases. It is all a bit random and not something we control. It doesn't loke some combinations of words on 'sex" and also some branding on medicine.
And you can get round it if you put spaces in if you work out what is triggering it.
Thanks for this. I've tried changing some words that might be causing it but haven't found the offending one yet (it's nothing obvious). Trial and error I guess.
-
Vlad,
You are just quoting examples of emergence.
Yes, thereby showing you that it’s a real phenomenon.
The only emergence from any bottom is your definition coming from your own.
Crass ignorance noted.
An emergent property is a novelty not demonstrated by any components at the previous organisation. Otherwise it is ''more of the same.''
“…at the previous organisation” is odd wording, but essentially yes. An emergent property is different from but inextricably connected to its constituent component parts and their interactions. It doesn't float free in some unspecified way as you seem to be implying
Of course if those components were not there, there would be nothing to emerge from, however the emergent property is definitionally a novelty.
Depends what you mean by “novelty”, but essentially yes – none of its constituent parts exhibit the same characteristics as the emergent property.
This might help....Paragraph 3
You perhaps. Try reading it.
If you can explain one example of how an emergent property is explicable completely in terms of the previous level I think you deserve a prize. Your present pretence of explaining any emergent by a reductionist approach does not however deserve plaudit.
Go on then.
Oh dear. Think about what you’re saying here. If you really wanted to discuss how emergence works, we could do that. If we did though, whether I could explain everything about it, nothing about it, or something in between is entirely irrelevant to the point.
Emergence observably happens. There’s nothing mystical about consciousness that would exempt it from the same process. Emergence is the only rational model in town that would explain consciousness.
Does that provide a cast iron guarantee that consciousness is an emergent property?
Of course not.
Does that mean that emergence is the only model we have that’s rational, robust and fits all the available data?
You bet your sweet jacksie it does.
What you’re trying here is equivalent to, “if you can’t explain how gravity works how do you know it works on Alpha Centauri?”
The short answer is that I don’t. The longer one though is that it’s the only model we have that fits all the data, so probabilistically it’s the best answer we have.
So yeah, we can talk about how emergence (or gravity for that matter) works as much as you like if you really want to. Both of them observably happen though, and each of them provides the only available credible explanations for consciousness and apples falling respectively.
Vis Paul Davies he was writing when reductionists baulked at the word. You demonstrate that todays mechanistic reductionists merely seem to have pirated the expression.
The Templeton Prize guy? Anyways, once again you demonstrate that you have no idea what “reductionist” actually means. If you want to accuse someone of it, then you need to show something that’s been reduced from remember?
You may recall that I helpfully explained to you recently how to spot a BS argument. Do you think that you are a reductionist from the arguments and assertions I make about leprechauns?
Why not?
-
NS,
Somewhat bizarrely, turned out the offending word was "sca tology"!
(Space added to fool the system)
-
Vlad,
I've tried to reply to you several times but keep getting this message when I do for some reason:
"Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /index.php on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request."
I have no idea what this means or why it's happening.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the, 'This page can't be displayed' which I get every day for some part of the day. The Tech chap who fixes things on my computer occasionally says it is 'an internal service error'. For instance, I had the 'This page....' notice this morning, left it on while I did the washing up, then did F5 and this site came up. It's quite irritating!
-
I think there is often a simple explanation in that the belief held that God abode with man from the beginning and
so man understood a lot more then than we do now regarding the word 'soul' the living person.
Genesis 2.7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
When God created the first body it must have been a living thing. But till he breathed life into the man there was no living person.
It would suggest that the person the breath of life became a living person only at that point. A living soul meaning a living being someone able to think, speak and move.
I believe within us we all ask the same questions... I believe the most common is at some stage in life:- " Why am I here?"
Everyone of us a separate living soul a person within a body not uniform in nature in or in our thought patterns but individual.
Life is from God but who we are our souls are individual to each of us he created.
We are not a product of our brain. Because all would be uniform and identical. Pretty much like robots off a conveyor belt.
Our separate identities show we are living souls according the person not the life.
Our souls who we are can only be available whilst life is within us. But the soul and body can both be thrown into hell by God.
For Christ to have said this shows that the body and soul two separate things.
-
I wonder if it has anything to do with the, 'This page can't be displayed' which I get every day for some part of the day. The Tech chap who fixes things on my computer occasionally says it is 'an internal service error'. For instance, I had the 'This page....' notice this morning, left it on while I did the washing up, then did F5 and this site came up. It's quite irritating!
No, they aren't related
-
We are not a product of our brain. Because all would be uniform and identical. Pretty much like robots off a conveyor belt.
Our separate identities show we are living souls according the person not the life.
That's way off the mark. Even our fingerprints are unique, never mind our brains. Even identical twins develop differently as they encounter different formative experiences.
-
Vlad,
.
The Templeton Prize guy?
I'm taking it that you are saying that as though it were a bad thing? Ha Ha.
-
Vlad,
I'm taking it that you are saying that as though it were a bad thing? Ha Ha.
Yes. As you say you're a fan of New Scientist, here's why:
https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/03/templeton-prize-is-bad-news-fo.html
It was also an ad hom though, so I was being unfair.
-
Vlad,
Yes. As you say you're a fan of New Scientist, here's why:
https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/03/templeton-prize-is-bad-news-fo.html
It was also an ad hom though, so I was being unfair.
Ah, dismissal of the Templeton is in your antitheist genome Blue as your Lord and Master is ag'in' it.....Richard Dawkins the ''Dead Rhino's twat'' man. Ho Ho
-
Vlad,
Ah, dismissal of the Templeton is in your antitheist genome Blue as your Lord and Master is ag'in' it.....Richard Dawkins the ''Dead Rhino's twat'' man. Ho Ho
Wrong again. The arguments against the Prize stand alone. Who makes them is neither here nor there.
-
Vlad,
Wrong again. The arguments against the Prize stand alone. Who makes them is neither here nor there.
I think you are mistaking me for someone who gives a shit about ''the prize''.
-
I think you are mistaking me for someone who gives a shit about ''the prize''.
1 through 7 ok
8 through 11 . Remove.
12. Keep.
13,14,15. Superfluous.
-
1 through 7 ok
8 through 11 . Remove.
12. Keep.
13,14,15. Superfluous.
1 through 7 Get
8 through 11 On stage
12 Before it
13,14,15 Wears off.
-
1 through 7 Get
8 through 11 On stage
12 Before it
13,14,15 Wears off.
Close but no vanilla flavoured vape.
-
That's way off the mark. Even our fingerprints are unique, never mind our brains. Even identical twins develop differently as they encounter different formative experiences.
An opinion and just your unwillingness to accept the things possible when there is no alternative or it cannot be proved.
We have twin in our family identical and they can even finish each others sentences.
They were born premature and if my sister had not been in hospital at the time she and the babies would have died.
My sister had been in hospital for back pain and rest. They took her for a scan but the twins were lay in a way they did not see the placenta bleeding. One twin already started to die but the other twin had her arms around her. Hugging her, five minutes after an all clear scan she started to bleed heavily and she was rushed by crash team into theatre and they were all saved.
The twins are very close they are closer than the other siblings and they sense when the other in danger or upset.
You totally misunderstood my point that us being separate people shows we have a soul. If the brain was what run the person and not the person/soul controlling the body. Then we would be robots. You missed the point and the fact we are not robots show the body is told what to do by the person within it.
The body does not just decide to walk and take us where we do not want to go.
-
You totally misunderstood my point that us being separate people shows we have a soul. If the brain was what run the person and not the person/soul controlling the body. Then we would be robots. You missed the point and the fact we are not robots show the body is told what to do by the person within it.
If that were true the we wouldn't need a brain if a soul can do the job of controlling the body. A brain is nature's inbuilt computer, taking inputs and coming up with optimal responses. If a soul can do it better, why have a brain ?
When a sparrow decides where to build its nest, is that the sparrow's brain or the sparrow's soul that makes the decision ?
-
If that were true the we wouldn't need a brain if a soul can do the job of controlling the body. A brain is nature's inbuilt computer, taking inputs and coming up with optimal responses. If a soul can do it better, why have a brain ?
You can take the boy out of the reductionist sloganizing....but you can't take the reductionist sloganizing out of the boy.
-
You can take the boy out of the reductionist sloganizing....but you can't take the reductionist sloganizing out of the boy.
You can take the piss out of Vlad's jokes ......but you can't take Vlad's jokes out of the piss.
-
You can take the piss out of Vlad's jokes ......but you can't take Vlad's jokes out of the piss.
I have to admit that was quite f......
I have to admit that was quite fffff.....
I have to admit that was quite ffffffuuu......
I have to admit that was quite ffffuuuuuuuuuu......
I have to admit that was quite fuuuuuuuuuck it, I can't bring myself to say it.......
-
I have to admit that was quite f......
I have to admit that was quite fffff.....
I have to admit that was quite ffffffuuu......
I have to admit that was quite ffffuuuuuuuuuu......
I have to admit that was quite fuuuuuuuuuck it, I can't bring myself to say it.......
....fulfilling? ;)