Karma

[Alan Burns]

I notice by the way that you still provide no evidence whatever for "soul". Why is that?

I can't provide physical evidence for the soul because the soul is not a physical thing.

The evidence that my soul exists is provided by my self awareness and free will, because this is what the soul does.

[Nearly Sane]

I can't provide physical evidence for the soul because the soul is not a physical thing.

The evidence that my soul exists is provided by my self awareness and free will, because this is what the soul does.

that's not evidence, that's begging the question twice and circular reasoning

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I can't provide physical evidence for the soul because the soul is not a physical thing.

The evidence that my soul exists is provided by my self awareness and free will, because this is what the soul does.

Thank you. You've now given me my example too for the entry on circular reasoning.

Just out of interest, does it not trouble you at all that the only arguments you attempt here are logically false? If I were in your shoes, I really think that - once a logical error I'd made had been pointed out to me - I'd think something like, "Oh yes, I can see that now. Perhaps I should amend or abandon that argument then and instead try to find once that's not demonstrably wrong".

You on the other hand just keep repeating the same mistakes. Why?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Thank you. You've now given me my example too for the entry on circular reasoning.

Just out of interest, does it not trouble you at all that the only arguments you attempt here are logically false? If I were in your shoes, I really think that - once a logical error I'd made had been pointed out to me - I'd think something like, "Oh yes, I can see that now. Perhaps I should amend or abandon that argument then and instead try to find once that's not demonstrably wrong".

You on the other hand just keep repeating the same mistakes. Why?

Because my awareness and conscious free will are the reality of my existence, and I can't accept that attributing these to my soul is a mistake.  It would be far more illogical to attribute these to the unguided events defined by the reactive activity of sub atomic particles.  And just labelling this post as a logical fallacy does not make it untrue.

[Nearly Sane]

Because my awareness and conscious free will are the reality of my existence, and I can't accept that attributing these to my soul is a mistake.  It would be far more illogical to attribute these to the unguided events defined by the reactive activity of sub atomic particles.  And just labelling this post as a logical fallacy does not make it untrue.

and just returning to the incredulity and thereby attempting to shift the burden of proof using the negative proof fallacy continues in your line of using logically flawed arguments.

And, of course, your assertion of free will is begging the question

[ekim]

 Rather the argument is that the emergence of adaptive systems from simpler components demonstrably happens, and moreover that that examples of things like ant colonies provide analogous models to neural networks. Absent any evidence of any kind for alternative explanations, emergence therefore provides the working hypothesis for consciousness.

I think the argument is between mixing two views of life/consciousness/intelligence. 

On the one hand is the apparent materialist view that everything derives from Einsteinian matter energy systems because those are forms which can be observed objectively and analysed and any complexity emerges from their interaction.  Everything seems to be mechanical, either a system adapts or doesn't adapt.  There appears to be no room for freedom of choice (intelligence), life or consciousness as they cannot be observed in their own right but only as life forms (ants) and conscious forms (animals).  There is something called swarm logic which loosely drives the particular into the (Borg) collective and everything ticks on until the clock stops and the integrated forms disintegrate.  Those life forms of suitable complexity seem happy to accept a working hypothesis of a truth derived from information of increasing complexity.

The other view is the immaterial view that there is life which you can experience more abundantly, consciousness that does not have to be bounded by the material and can be free from the various forms of swarm logic, and an intelligence which can be used to achieve this.  There is no material evidence for this view just anecdotal and experiential available to the individual who chooses a particular suitable inward method/path/way which he initially has to take on faith, and hope that the path leads to an ultimate truth beyond understanding and hypotheses.  The path tends to be towards increasing simplicity.

[Alan Burns]

And, of course, your assertion of free will is begging the question

Free will is not an assertion, just a description of my ability (and yours) to make a conscious choice.  You may choose to be convinced that your free will is an illusion, but this will just be a further demonstration that you have the ability to make this choice.

[Nearly Sane]

Free will is not an assertion, just a description of my ability (and yours) to make a conscious choice.  You may choose to be convinced that your free will is an illusion, but this will just be a further demonstration that you have the ability to make this choice.

I am not convinced about anything on this. I am jyst waiting for your evidence. So far you as e just saying that you think it's true because it feels true to you. I note also that you have just ignored the other logical fallacy issues that were pointed out. Does this mean that you accept that your argument was fallacious?

[Gordon]

Because my awareness and conscious free will are the reality of my existence, and I can't accept that attributing these to my soul is a mistake.  It would be far more illogical to attribute these to the unguided events defined by the reactive activity of sub atomic particles.  And just labelling this post as a logical fallacy does not make it untrue.

Your repeated use of fallacies is so evident that 'not even wrong' would be a better critique of your post(s).

[torridon]

You seem unable to grasp the concept of the soul being able to wilfully generate an event which is not deterministically controlled by a chain of physical events.  If an event is driven by the spiritual power of the soul it is certainly not random, but driven by the power of conscious free will.  The fact that we may find no physical cause for the event does not necessarily make it random - just that the cause can't be detected by physical means.  It is the reason why conscious awareness and free will are inextricably linked, because if we have no free will, there is no need for conscious awareness because it just becomes an ineffective spectator upon the deterministically controlled events it sees.

Just are just hung up on physical/non-physical whereas I was making the point that your problem is essentially a conceptual one. A choice is made for a reason and is therefore an outcome of that preceding reason; part of cause an effect.  Just claiming that the chooser is immaterial does not buy you free will in the most fundamental sense. If a choice is made for a reason then it is not free of that reason.  If a choice is not made for any reason, then it is random.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Because my awareness and conscious free will are the reality of my existence, and I can't accept that attributing these to my soul is a mistake.

Do you think that your inability to accept something is related in some way to whether or not it’s true?

It would be far more illogical to attribute these to the unguided events defined by the reactive activity of sub atomic particles.

Why? What’s illogical about our sense of self feeling as if it’s experiencing “free” will and the reality that that sense does not reflect accurately what’s really happening?

And just labelling this post as a logical fallacy does not make it untrue.

No-one “just labels” arguments as logically false – either they are logically false or they’re not. In your post for example your inability to accept something as true is called the argument from personal incredulity – a basic error in standard logic.

Now if you don’t care about your arguments being logically wrong that’s a matter for you. My question though was about why you don’t care. If you want people to take you seriously then why exit yourself immediately from the possibility of that by deploying broken arguments to validate your opinions?

[torridon]

I can't provide physical evidence for the soul because the soul is not a physical thing.

How does a non-physical thing interact with physical things ?

The evidence that my soul exists is provided by my self awareness and free will, because this is what the soul does.

Free will is disputed, and self-awareness is not ubiquitous; a two year old human for instance is not self-aware, so by your assertion he does not have a soul.

[Nearly Sane]

How does a non-physical thing interact with physical things ?

Free will is disputed, and self-awareness is not ubiquitous; a two year old human for instance is not self-aware, so by your assertion he does not have a soul.

whereas it would appear that adult elephants are self aware but Alan says they don't have souls.

[torridon]

#701
It appears to me then that the approach taken is this:

The truth is X. Having X creates an infinite regression. Therefore something other than X must be found.

Which means therefore that whatever else is found, it will be wrong. Sriram’s #536 illustrates why.

In my opinion, there is at least one possible solution to any potential infinite regression. Jack Knave has suggested one; see his #678:

Which doesn’t say anything about what the something may be. The truth (or otherwise) of what he said is not affected by knowing something / not knowing anything about what the something is.

Here are a couple of suggestions of eternal things - energy, and logic, in the sense that logic is atemporal.  Is there a case for asserting something highly complex as being eternal ? Something complex would have simpler derivation, hence not a good candidate for being eternal. If you want something eternal to avoid infinite regression, then I think it has to be irreducible, fundamental and simple, like logic or energy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I think the argument is between mixing two views of life/consciousness/intelligence. 

On the one hand is the apparent materialist view that everything derives from Einsteinian matter energy systems because those are forms which can be observed objectively and analysed and any complexity emerges from their interaction.

That’s expressed in terms that are too absolute. It’s not necessarily that “everything derives from” etc, but rather that the materialist model is the only one we know of that’s investigable and verifiable such that we can distinguish the claims of the probabilistically true from white noise. 

Everything seems to be mechanical, either a system adapts or doesn't adapt.  There appears to be no room for freedom of choice (intelligence), life or consciousness as they cannot be observed in their own right but only as life forms (ants) and conscious forms (animals).  There is something called swarm logic which loosely drives the particular into the (Borg) collective and everything ticks on until the clock stops and the integrated forms disintegrate.  Those life forms of suitable complexity seem happy to accept a working hypothesis of a truth derived from information of increasing complexity.

Sort of – there’s plenty of room for the working appearance of freedom of choice (which is why societies send people to jail for making bad choices). There’s plenty of room too for consciousness, but the materialist just looks for cogent explanations for it based on natural phenomena because terms like “soul” etc provide only epistemic white noise as an alternative. 

The other view is the immaterial view that there is life which you can experience more abundantly, consciousness that does not have to be bounded by the material and can be free from the various forms of swarm logic, and an intelligence which can be used to achieve this.  There is no material evidence for this view…

This reminds me of the episode of Brass Eye when some dupe was persuaded to say: “Paedophiles share more DNA with crabs than they do with normal people. There’s no actual evidence for this, but it’s true anyway”.

…just anecdotal and experiential available to the individual who chooses a particular suitable inward method/path/way which he initially has to take on faith, and hope that the path leads to an ultimate truth beyond understanding and hypotheses.  The path tends to be towards increasing simplicity.

But it’s not “the “ path at all. Absent a method of any kind to distinguish the truth value of any such claim from that of any other, the “anecdotal and experiential” will produce as many outcomes as there people to have them.
 
Which if fine in some ways for subjective truths personal to the people who have them, but provides nothing whatever of value for establishing “true for you too” truths.

[Walter]

AB,

Thank you. You've now given me my example too for the entry on circular reasoning.

Just out of interest, does it not trouble you at all that the only arguments you attempt here are logically false? If I were in your shoes, I really think that - once a logical error I'd made had been pointed out to me - I'd think something like, "Oh yes, I can see that now. Perhaps I should amend or abandon that argument then and instead try to find once that's not demonstrably wrong".

You on the other hand just keep repeating the same mistakes. Why?

you can keep  telling a child not to put his hand in the fire .  At some point the kid will , he'll  never do it again, unless he is incapable of learning. If he keeps doing it he will loose his hand .

AB lost his hand a long time ago.

The only way he can justify his stupidity is to continue with it as if to give it value.
Neither you nor I can ever change his mind. Its like a hypnotised person on  a stage show who is convinced  a lemon is a sweet orange. The difference is  no one can  snap them out of it ,   

[Alan Burns]

I am not convinced about anything on this. I am jyst waiting for your evidence. So far you as e just saying that you think it's true because it feels true to you. I note also that you have just ignored the other logical fallacy issues that were pointed out. Does this mean that you accept that your argument was fallacious?

I accept that my arguments can't be substantiated by physical evidence or material science, because such evidence can never be used to explain the spiritual capabilities of the human soul.  What the soul does in terms of perception and exerting conscious choices is not explained or defined by material science.  You may class this as a negative proof fallacy, but I am not putting my arguments forward as proof, because I admit I can't prove the soul's existence with mere words.  I am just trying to open up people to admit to the possibility of the soul.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#745

Something that is 'eternal' is just as much as an infinite regression as a set of causes.

Can you expand on what you mean by this? My understanding would be that if something is eternal (without a beginning), it has no cause, therefore where is the regression?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I accept that my arguments can't be substantiated by physical evidence or material science, because such evidence can never be used to explain the spiritual capabilities of the human soul. What the soul does in terms of perception and exerting conscious choices is not explained or defined by material science.

Not that you care, but that’s another fallacy – call reification. You just assume “the spiritual capabilities of the human soul” and then base an argument on the assumption. Another explanation though is that you can’t substantiate it because it’s not true.

You may class this as a negative proof fallacy…

No, it’s called the fallacy of reification.

…but I am not putting my arguments forward as proof, because I admit I can't prove the soul's existence with mere words.  I am just trying to open up people to admit to the possibility of the soul.

But why? You’ve been told here many times that people don’t exclude the possibility of anything – that’s a straw man (another fallacy by the way). You can posit “soul” or, if they take your fancy instead, leprechauns too as much as you like. No-one can say that any of these conjectures are necessarily not true – but that helps you not a jot toward establishing that they are more likely to be true than not.

[Nearly Sane]

#745

Can you expand on what you mean by this? My understanding would be that if something is eternal (without a beginning), it has no cause, therefore where is the regression?

Because it's an infinite regression in terms of time. It's no different from a succession of cause and effects.

[Nearly Sane]

I accept that my arguments can't be substantiated by physical evidence or material science, because such evidence can never be used to explain the spiritual capabilities of the human soul.  What the soul does in terms of perception and exerting conscious choices is not explained or defined by material science.  You may class this as a negative proof fallacy, but I am not putting my arguments forward as proof, because I admit I can't prove the soul's existence with mere words.  I am just trying to open up people to admit to the possibility of the soul.

but you cited your arguments, which were based on logical fallacies, as evidence earlier on. Do you now accept that they are not evidence and ate logically fallacious?

Many things are possible, you need to make a case stronger than that, as since bluehillside has covered, something being possible is no more valuable than a guess

[Walter]

I accept that my arguments can't be substantiated by physical evidence or material science, because such evidence can never be used to explain the spiritual capabilities of the human soul.  What the soul does in terms of perception and exerting conscious choices is not explained or defined by material science.  You may class this as a negative proof fallacy, but I am not putting my arguments forward as proof, because I admit I can't prove the soul's existence with mere words.  I am just trying to open up people to admit to the possibility of the soul.

I'm  as open as they come AB but my intellectual self respect prevents nonsense from entering. If you are happy for that to happen , good luck to you ,. As long as you keep it to yourself eh ?

[Sriram]

Because it's an infinite regression in terms of time. It's no different from a succession of cause and effects.

But Time is a product of our space-time.  There is nothing called Time independent of our universe. How do you know that Time even exists for an eternal being? 

[Nearly Sane]

But Time is a product of our space-time.  There is nothing called Time independent of our universe. How do you know that Time even exists for an eternal being?

We don't but since we are then just talking about something that makes no linguistic sense we should admit that. 'Being' and "existence' are temporally expressed concepts. Remove time from the concepts and they become verbal mush. Remember here, I haven't put forward any idea of an eternal being so asking me what it might be like is a trifle odd.

[Walter]

We don't but since we are then just talking about something that makes no linguistic sense we should admit that. 'Being' and "existence' are temporally expressed concepts. Remove time from the concepts and they become verbal mush. Remember here, I haven't put forward any idea of an eternal being so asking me what it might be like is a trifle odd.

NS


I really have a problem controlling my responses to posts on this forum . Especially to this one.