Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You used maths as a comparison to 'souls' - so in what ways do they compare?

In other words the 'self' is a component part of the human animal - is that what you are saying?

Is it any more than an idea or thought?

I haven't mentioned 'illusion' but you have: in fact you've mentioned 'illusion' twice already this morning and it isn't even breakfast time yet.

You used maths as a comparison to 'souls' - so in what ways do they compare?

In other words the 'self' is a component part of the human animal - is that what you are saying?

Is it any more than an idea or thought?

I haven't mentioned 'illusion' but you have: in fact you've mentioned 'illusion' twice already this morning and it isn't even breakfast time yet.

Not materially identified or located but something that is in its own right.
Perhaps a closer parallel would be a meme. No one seems to have seen located or measured one in terms of its SI units.
I don't know what a self is. I know that I have and am one. So come on science I say.

[Shaker]

I don't know what a self is. I know that I have and am one.

It would behove you to take a more agnostic line there surely, Vlad

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It would behove you to take a more agnostic line there surely, Vlad

I don't know about that.

[Gordon]

Not materially identified or located but something that is in its own right.

But what is 'it' - how does 'it' differ from a thought or idea?

Perhaps a closer parallel would be a meme. No one seems to have seen located or measured one in terms of its SI units.

So, are you saying Alan's 'soul' claim is analogous to a meme?

I don't know what a self is. I know that I have and am one.

As in having knowledge: such as saying I have a liver?

So come on science I say.

Why do you say that? After all science can only get involved where the subject is suited to scientific investigation. You'll need to indicate what methods you think scientists should employ if they are to go soul-searching..

[Sebastian Toe]

It's not physical so how can there be a where? Like maths there isn't formulas or equations floating about spatially but they are manifest throughout nature.

Even materialism can't give us a where for certain things.

Do maths physically react to neurons or synapses in our brains?
Do maths make decisions and fire off commands to cause neurons or synapses to drive our physical bodies to act on those decisions?
Are maths allocated to humans on an individual and unique basis?
Do maths go to to heaven?

[Nearly Sane]

Do maths physically react to neurons or synapses in our brains?
Do maths make decisions and fire off commands to cause neurons or synapses to drive our physical bodies to act on those decisions?
Are maths allocated to humans on an individual and unique basis?
Do maths go to to heaven?

Dunno but this monkey and all dogs do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But what is 'it' - how does 'it' differ from a thought or idea?

So, are you saying Alan's 'soul' claim is analogous to a meme?

As in having knowledge: such as saying I have a liver?

Why do you say that? After all science can only get involved where the subject is suited to scientific investigation. You'll need to indicate what methods you think scientists should employ if they are to go soul-searching..

Are you sure you have a liver Gordon. Can you see it feel it, touch it. Are you aware of it every waking moment.

Yes I am certain I exist and am not an illusion after all......what is it that is being illuded? If I just seem to exist what is it that it seems that way too?

And while part of my brain can be bamboozled by the possible regression I continue to be aware of myself.

[Gordon]

Are you sure you have a liver Gordon. Can you see it feel it, touch it. Are you aware of it every waking moment.

Yes - I don't have jaundice you see, and I seem to be alive.

Yes I am certain I exist and am not an illusion after all......what is it that is being illuded? If I just seem to exist what is it that it seems that way too?

In reality or in a simulation of reality?

And while part of my brain can be bamboozled by the possible regression I continue to be aware of myself.

I'm sure that is what you think.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dunno but this monkey and all dogs do.

You have a monkey?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes - I don't have jaundice you see, and I seem to be alive.

In reality or in a simulation of reality?
I'm sure that is what you think.

So there is a me doing the thinking then.

[Gordon]

So there is a me doing the thinking then.

So, you go with Cogito ergo sum?

[Stranger]

So come on science I say.

Science is getting on with its investigation of consciousness and 'self'.

All the evidence is that a sense of 'self' is produced by the brain - but exactly how is not yet known. It is for those who propose other ideas like 'souls' to present their evidence and/or reasoning (and by reasoning, I don't mean the inane personal incredulity and blind faith that AB posts).

[SteveH]

So, you go with Cogito ergo sum?

How can anyone not? If there's one statement in all of philosophy that is absolutely incontrovertible if you understand it, it is "I think, therefore I am". Mind you, I know an elderly fool on another forum who claims to have had some philosophical training who disagrees: he thinks it should be "I am, therefore I think". He is the sort of bloke who, if there are any sticks lying around, can be guaranteed to grab hold of the wrong end of them.

[Nearly Sane]

How can anyone not? If there's one statement in all of philosophy that is absolutely incontrovertible if you understand it, it is "I think, therefore I am". Mind you, I know an elderly fool on another forum who claims to have had some philosophical training who disagrees: he thinks it should be "I am, therefore I think". He is the sort of bloke who, if there are any sticks lying around, can be guaranteed to grab hold of the wrong end of them.

It's very controvertible as it's based on a begging the question assuming a unitary individual, and does much the same with the concept of existence.  I would suggest all that can be concluded is that there is thinking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Science is getting on with its investigation of consciousness and 'self'.

All the evidence is that a sense of 'self' is produced by the brain - but exactly how is not yet known. It is for those who propose other ideas like 'souls' to present their evidence and/or reasoning (and by reasoning, I don't mean the inane personal incredulity and blind faith that AB posts).

I have no beef with science at all.
Since we are well and truly part of the creation. I have no fear of being found a mechanism.
Find the mechanism.

I think I take Searles line.
We need to be careful of promissory science though but that doesn't stop science proceeding.

Calling Illusion or saying of course it has to be a mechanism is not good enough.........or science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's very controvertible as it's based on a begging the question assuming a unitary individual, and does much the same with the concept of existence.  I would suggest all that can be concluded is that there is thinking.

If you are proposing a non unitary individual then the concept of a trinity should be a cinch for you.

[Nearly Sane]

If you are proposing a non unitary individual then the concept of a trinity should be a cinch for you.

I'm not proposing a non unitary individual.

[Sebastian Toe]

Are you sure you have a liver Gordon. Can you see it feel it, touch it. Are you aware of it every waking moment.

Yes I am certain I exist and am not an illusion after all......what is it that is being illuded? If I just seem to exist what is it that it seems that way too?

And while part of my brain can be bamboozled by the possible regression I continue to be aware of myself.

Do you have a soul?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, you go with Cogito ergo sum?

Is that what you are taking for your liver?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you have a soul?

Define soul.
I know that many people around here are not P Zombies.......but R Souls.

[torridon]

Of course I believe that God intended us to be His creation.  Common sense tells me that billions of years of random, unguided, aimless forces could produce nothing but a chaotic goo - even with the right ingredients.  I see human scientific investigation as being just an an insight into God's creative genius.

Common sense also tells us that the Sun revolves around the Earth.  Any bugger can look up at the sky and see the Sun moving from East to West every day; no need for reflecting telescopes or high end processors or any of your fancy science theories, the truth of the matter is bleedin' obvious init?

[Sebastian Toe]

Define soul.
I know that many people around here are not P Zombies.......but R Souls.

The same definition that Alan Burns uses.
If you have been following this thread at all then you will clearly know what that means.

[Gordon]

How can anyone not? If there's one statement in all of philosophy that is absolutely incontrovertible if you understand it, it is "I think, therefore I am". Mind you, I know an elderly fool on another forum who claims to have had some philosophical training who disagrees: he thinks it should be "I am, therefore I think". He is the sort of bloke who, if there are any sticks lying around, can be guaranteed to grab hold of the wrong end of them.

It involves begging the question: it assumes the 'I'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The same definition that Alan Burns uses.
If you have been following this thread at all then you will clearly know what that means.

Ah that'll be it then. My only involvement is to criticise a couple of people about their understanding of emergence.
My definition of soul is the self.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It involves begging the question: it assumes the 'I'.

You said that as if it were a bad thing besides if there is no 'I' you cannot accuse it of begging the fucking question.