Disproving The concept of a "soul". [Archive]

La ComÃ©die Noire

30th January 2007, 02:28

I beleive in an extrinsic self influenced by material reality rather then an intrinsic soul endowed with divine programming. And I have some backing to this.

It has been found that when an infant is socially isolated for a long period of time they suffer from severe retardation and lack of personality. Such as the case of Anna who had been tied to a chair and fed the bare minimum of food until she was five. (unfortunately I cannot find a link to this)

It has also been found when children grow up around animals they learn and mimic the behaviour of the animals and become "feral" There are many documented cases...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_children

Also I submit as evidence the celebrated expiriments of Harry Harlow who found Rhesus monkeys when socially isolated for more than six months become irreversably emotionally damaged....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harlow

So I present to those of you who beleive in the concept of a soul this question..

If Human Beings have intrinsic souls would'nt it be logical to assume they would develop a personality even in isolation? Even when faced with different surroundings would'nt an intrinsic human soul shine through? If animals also had souls, such as rehsus monkeys, wouldn't they also develop just fine in isolation?

Pow R. Toc H.

30th January 2007, 02:37

It is only rational to not believe in a "soul", in a materialist sense that is. I've never heard however, that when isolated from society for a long amount of time that it causes retardation. That amazes me, but it proves once again that we are truly products of our environment.

Cyanide Suicide

30th January 2007, 02:53

I watched a show a while back called "Feral Children" or something like that, I'm not sure if you say it or not.

But I don't think they have a lack of personality, they just lack a personality that is found in typical kids/teens/adults. Which I think is moreso caused by lack of education. I mean, if you are isolated then you can't be exposed to learning, which would result in retardation in some cases. Just because a child has fucked up parents that isolate them or no parents at all, I don't believe that it necessarily discounts the possibility of a "soul." Although I do find it unlikely.

One of the more interesting cases of feral children to me is the case of Genie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_%28feral_child%29). Very interesting behaviors after her rescue, most notably: "She masturbated excessively, which turned out to be the most serious anti-social behavior problem of all (Curtiss 1977). Many of the items she coveted were objects with which to masturbate and she would attempt to do so, regardless of where she was (Curtiss 1977)".

La ComÃ©die Noire

30th January 2007, 03:17

I watched a show a while back called "Feral Children" or something like that, I'm not sure if you say it or not.

I have not seen that, maybe one day I shall.

But I don't think they have a lack of personality, they just lack a personality that is found in typical kids/teens/adults. Which I think is moreso caused by lack of education. I mean, if you are isolated then you can't be exposed to learning, which would result in retardation in some cases. Just because a child has fucked up parents that isolate them or no parents at all, I don't believe that it necessarily discounts the possibility of a "soul." Although I do find it unlikely.

That is what I am saying. These cases show that humans must go through a process of extrinsic socialization in order to become what is considered "human". Where as a soul is intrinsic meaning one beleives god, or a supernatural force, has assighned traits such as love, happiness, sadness, jealousy ect. to all of humanity.

One of the more interesting cases of feral children to me is the case of Genie. Very interesting behaviors after her rescue, most notably: "She masturbated excessively, which turned out to be the most serious anti-social behavior problem of all (Curtiss 1977). Many of the items she coveted were objects with which to masturbate and she would attempt to do so, regardless of where she was (Curtiss 1977)".

Yes, I have read about that case. She was tied to a poddy chair in a dark garage until she was released by authoritys in 1970 at the age of 13. Through a rigirous learning program she was able to be socialized within two years and was able to attend 6th grade classes by the time she was 14. However since I read this in a high school text it lacked mention of the chronic masturbation. :D

Question everything

30th January 2007, 15:18

RedAnarchist

30th January 2007, 15:20

How exactly do religious people explain what happens a soul after death?

Question everything

30th January 2007, 15:30

every religion a different story... heaven or reincarnation mostly though...

RedAnarchist

30th January 2007, 16:02

so its only the soul that goes to heaven? Nothing else?

Do they explain how the soul reaches this "heaven" or gets "reincarnated"?

Question everything

30th January 2007, 16:19

I have heard the theory that even though we have figured out the brain, we cannot not figure out what controls our will, it is a quantum force that exist beyond our body (some use it as an explaination for ESP), that in theory is the soul, it exists beyond death...

oh and yay me this makes 100 posts :D

t_wolves_fan

30th January 2007, 19:33

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 30, 2007 02:28 am
If Human Beings have intrinsic souls would'nt it be logical to assume they would develop a personality even in isolation?
No, soul and personality aren't the same thing.

Further, one only need posit that the human soul needs interaction with other souls to develop, adapt, flourish, etc.

You understand that this means you believe in communism merely because a certain segment has created it and you found a way to be socialized into it, which means it can't be proven to be correct any more than any other social/political/economic system.

razboz

31st January 2007, 11:53

You understand that this means you believe in communism merely because a certain segment has created it and you found a way to be socialized into it, which means it can't be proven to be correct any more than any other social/political/economic system.

lol t_wolves, sometimes i wonder if you didnt wash up from mcarthy's office in the 50s. What does this have to do with communism? YOur link is extremely tenuous. Communism does not require it be "proven" correct. Please expand/justify this statement.

back to the soul topic. If the soul is what makes humans human, then all humans should have certain trace of humanity, regardless of their upbringing. However t_wolves does have pooi nt when he says that accepting the existance of a soul we can just create a new parameter that explains the exceptions to the rule. the explanation that the soul develops as it interacts with other souls would like the soul to the regular accepted model for the biological mind.

I have heard the theory that even though we have figured out the brain, we cannot not figure out what controls our will, it is a quantum force that exist beyond our body (some use it as an explaination for ESP), that in theory is the soul, it exists beyond death...

I heard a theory that scientists with an agenda are full of shit. Seriously, just because its too complex to explain does not mean there is a "quantum force" controlling the will from outside the mind. Many cases of ESP can be explained by simple mental delusions and charlatans.

t_wolves_fan

31st January 2007, 15:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:53 am
lol t_wolves, sometimes i wonder if you didnt wash up from mcarthy's office in the 50s. What does this have to do with communism? YOur link is extremely tenuous. Communism does not require it be "proven" correct. Please expand/justify this statement.

That's odd considering I'm adamantly opposed to tactics like those used by McCarthy. If you want to believe in whacky things and express that belief then so be it.

As far as "proving communism" I am reacting to the common refrain on this site (not necessarily made by you) that communism has some kind of empirical and objective support to it, when it doesn't. At all.

Nor do any social or political models, their performance and "success" is judged on purely normative and subjective criteria.

Question everything

31st January 2007, 15:44

"quantum force"

quantum is this case is refering to an incredibly tiny force, comparable in size and energy perhaps to computer Bits, the mind is something that scientist cannot explain there explaination of the brain, claims the brain work somewhat like a computer, but they have trouble figuring out what will is, so like us typing at our computers there must be something controling our impulses...

razboz

31st January 2007, 16:05

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 31, 2007 03:44 pm
"quantum force"

quantum is this case is refering to an incredibly tiny force, comparable in size and energy perhaps to computer Bits, the mind is something that scientist cannot explain there explaination of the brain, claims the brain work somewhat like a computer, but they have trouble figuring out what will is, so like us typing at our computers there must be something controling our impulses...
I realise you might not be acognitive scientist or neurologist but why cant te thing "doing the typing" just be a part of the mind dedicated to starting neurological impulses? Could the thing which causes will or the appearanc eof will not be external stimuli? Actually this seems to make sense to me. If there is an exterior effector that begins a process in the mind could thi not be taken to be will? This does not require the existance of any force outsid eof what normal biological sciences allows...

That's odd considering I'm adamantly opposed to tactics like those used by McCarthy. If you want to believe in whacky things and express that belief then so be it.

I was referring to the way you linked this discussion (or elements of it) to communism and little basis you think it has. McCarthy lashed out in this way too against pretty much everyone and calling them all reds.

But yeah i get your point, t_wolves.

Question everything

31st January 2007, 16:20

I realise you might not be acognitive scientist or neurologist but why cant te thing "doing the typing" just be a part of the mind dedicated to starting neurological impulses?

they've done experiments I think that there are biological things that control impulses (hormones, etc.) but they cannot find what controls "will"... so unless you think we run completely on impluse it is unknown what drives us...

Eleutherios

31st January 2007, 16:59

Brain damage and drug use are also strong evidence against the existence of a soul. If our personalities and thoughts aren't physically in the brain but rather in some non-physical soul thing, how is it that physical damage to the brain can cause severe alteration of one's personality and thought processes?

Similarly, how could the ingestion of psychoactive drugs like alcohol, cannabis, LSD and cocaine alter our personalities and thought processes? How could these molecules — molecules which surely have no souls or spirits of their own — alter the behavior of non-physical souls?

But I've always regarded the most powerful evidence against souls to be the physical existence of the brain in the first place. This is a highly complex organ which seems to be an ingeniously engineered meat computer capable of processing and storing huge amounts of information. The more we study the brain, the more we learn about how we think because that's where the thinking is happening! Why would we have brains if we also had these non-physical souls capable of processing and storing all the information in our minds? Is there anything the soul is supposed to do that the human brain does not? Of course not. So then, what is the brain for? Why do we have a physical soul inside our skulls, if thoughts and emotions are all supposed to happen in some invisible parallel dimension?

Question everything

31st January 2007, 17:22

Why do we have a physical soul inside our skulls, if thoughts and emotions are all supposed to happen in some invisible parallel dimension?

it does not happen in an alternate dimesion, from the little I know on the subjet of quantum physics, what we describe as quantum is the inside of a sub atomic particle (electron, proton or neutron) the pharse quantum force refers to the fact that it is what exists inside or between these particles... also according to a theory (that does not seem spiritual) we flash in and out of existance several times a second, too fast for us to notice besides we do not exist to perceive it during that time... so if our soul is connect to a parallel dimension it does so by not disappearing with the rest of the world during that short time...

Brain damage and drug use are also strong evidence against the existence of a soul.

Like I said we have hormones!!! we are not always logical, or even thinking, that is hormones (or other biological forces), to say that we are in complete control of our thoughts and action 100% of the time is an utter lie, when we do not "control" our actions that is biological forces defying will...

does any one here smoke?

you know it is stupid, but you do it any way that is what I am talking about... your addiction is driving you, not your will (as you may have noticed I refer to your soul as your will)

The more we study the brain, the more we learn about how we think because that's where the thinking is happening!

that is where the memory is, and currently we can only track where the memory is activated!!! not where it is activated from!!!

wtfm8lol

31st January 2007, 17:34

i personally think it's hilarious how when it was pointed out to believers in a soul that it couldn't be found within the human body, they moved it into another dimension :lol:

Question everything

31st January 2007, 17:36

I never said it was in another dimension wtfm8lol :angry: ...
besides it is based of of what we know now, I mean by the same logic we should argue that it is hilarious that they have changed the elements from fire, earth, wind and water to what we have now because the old way didn't make sense :P

I haven't figured you out yet, wtfm8lol... but you got to be one (or a combonation) of the following...

1. a rich kid living off his dad's money, who is so bored he has nothing better to do than make fun of commies (that one seems unlikely) :huh:

2. a cappie nerd who spends way too much time in the inside of his locker. :lol:

3. an Asshole with a computer :o

4. a CIA agent who is going to find out where we live, then drag us over to guantanemo... :ph34r:

tell me soon...

kjt1981

1st February 2007, 00:25

ive had some pretty fucked up drug experiences that would be incredibly difficult to explain "logically" or scientifically. A soul may be scientifically impossible to prove, but then its scientifically impossible to disprove the existence of a "god" figure, whatever it may be.

wtfm8lol

1st February 2007, 03:01

ive had some pretty fucked up drug experiences that would be incredibly difficult to explain "logically" or scientifically.

no, they wouldnt be hard for a knowledgeable person to explain. just because you can't explain it doesn't mean an expert in the field would have any trouble.

A soul may be scientifically impossible to prove, but then its scientifically impossible to disprove the existence of a "god" figure, whatever it may be.

why is this argument even mentioned any more?

I haven't figured you out yet, wtfm8lol... but you got to be one (or a combonation) of the following...

3

besides it is based of of what we know now, I mean by the same logic we should argue that it is hilarious that they have changed the elements from fire, earth, wind and water to what we have now because the old way didn't make sense tongue.gif

it's not really like that at all..it's more like once the soul was shown to be non-existent inside our bodies, it was moved to where it couldn't be disproved, without any evidence whatsoever to suggest that the new theory describes the universe any better than the first.

Eleutherios

1st February 2007, 06:54

I didn't mean the word "dimension" in a purely physical sense. In fact, I couldn't possibly do that, since we are talking about non-physical (spiritual) entities here, which are said not to exist in physical reality as we know it.

Everybody I talk to who believes in these non-physical souls often do talk about it as if it's happening in some other, invisible, imperceivable dimension, and they even have a name for it: the "spirit realm".

Frankly, I am baffled when I even attempt to grasp this concept of something that is non-physical, yet also existent. If something is completely undetectable, unprovable, and unobservable then how can it actually be said to exist? If there is no possible way to muck up any kind of evidence for it, why do people believe it?

And why do people conjure up quantum mechanics to try to prove supernatural things? Quantum mechanics is a physical theory that has nothing to do with the supernatural. Anything science can demonstrate is by definition natural and not supernatural, and that includes all of quantum mechanics.

La ComÃ©die Noire

1st February 2007, 07:24

No, soul and personality aren't the same thing.

Let us observe the defenitions..

soul
–noun
1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans , regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.

Personality
-noun
the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual.

Sound pretty damn similar to me. The only difference is one doesnt claim to be a seperate entity from the physical body.

Further, one only need posit that the human soul needs interaction with other souls to develop, adapt, flourish, etc.

Or you could just drop all that extra baggage that the word soul carries and call it personality.

You understand that this means you believe in communism merely because a certain segment has created it and you found a way to be socialized into it, which means it can't be proven to be correct any more than any other social/political/economic system.

Yes I do but it can be verified because you can observe economics happening in everyday life and communists merely purpose a more efficent and equal way of distributing goods in an industrial economy. Wether or not you agree it to be better is up to you. But what we don't do is purpose superflous information and say it can't be seen therefore it exists.

Now on to others..

Brain damage and drug use are also strong evidence against the existence of a soul. If our personalities and thoughts aren't physically in the brain but rather in some non-physical soul thing, how is it that physical damage to the brain can cause severe alteration of one's personality and thought processes?

I am glad you brought that up! I was just about to put foward a case for everyones consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

Significant damage to the frontal lobes can cause a dramatic change in personality. Also you may want to look at this..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy

If there exists a permanent self that is "a distinct entity separate from the body" than why do these things happen when the grey matter is banged up?

Oh yeah and while we are speaking of brain problems..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer's_disease

ive had some pretty fucked up drug experiences that would be incredibly difficult to explain "logically" or scientifically.

I've done shrooms want to try me on fucked up drug experiences? And yes it can be explained logically......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin

It is merely a chemical that changes how the receptors in the brain receive information. You as well as 61% of people have had mystical expriences under observation and did the scientists in the room see these things? No, because they weren't on drugs!

peaccenicked

1st February 2007, 07:25

The word "soul" is a confusing word. It means different things to different people.
The religious people want it saved, poets and singers see it as more as the essential heart of something. The word has always to be examined in context.

t_wolves_fan

1st February 2007, 14:21

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 01, 2007 07:24 am

No, soul and personality aren't the same thing.

Let us observe the defenitions..

I love when people resort to the dictionary for these kind of arguments.

Sound pretty damn similar to me. The only difference is one doesnt claim to be a seperate entity from the physical body.

Change "only" to "key".

If you don't want to believe in a seperate soul then don't. It's really your choice.

Question everything

1st February 2007, 19:34

Frankly, I am baffled when I even attempt to grasp this concept of something that is non-physical, yet also existent. If something is completely undetectable, unprovable, and unobservable then how can it actually be said to exist? If there is no possible way to muck up any kind of evidence for it, why do people believe it?

let me respond with a question, do you think that we as humans with 5 senses perceive everything? do you not believe that there may well be other senses that we do not have? perhaps we are not seeing everything??? perhaps heaven is right infront of us but we are blind to it... think about it...

t_wolves_fan

1st February 2007, 20:04

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 01, 2007 07:34 pm
let me respond with a question, do you think that we as humans with 5 senses perceive everything? do you not believe that there may well be other senses that we do not have? perhaps we are not seeing everything??? perhaps heaven is right infront of us but we are blind to it... think about it...
Whatever, William Blake.

;)

Eleutherios

1st February 2007, 20:54

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 01, 2007 07:34 pm

Frankly, I am baffled when I even attempt to grasp this concept of something that is non-physical, yet also existent. If something is completely undetectable, unprovable, and unobservable then how can it actually be said to exist? If there is no possible way to muck up any kind of evidence for it, why do people believe it?

let me respond with a question, do you think that we as humans with 5 senses perceive everything? do you not believe that there may well be other senses that we do not have? perhaps we are not seeing everything??? perhaps heaven is right infront of us but we are blind to it... think about it...
There are certainly things we cannot directly perceive, but which we can observe - magnetic fields, dark matter, and black holes for instance. However, we can say that these things exist because they have indirect measurable influences on things which we can perceive with our sense organs.

But to postulate the existence of something which is in principle unobservable by any possible means, that's just ridiculous. If something does not have any measurable impact on our universe anywhere at any time, what does it even mean to say that it exists? Things which have no impact on our universe and things which do not exist are indistinguishable, so why make a distinction between them? As far as I'm concerned, the unobservable and the non-existent are identical. If Heaven cannot be observed, then it does not exist. Period. To assert otherwise is to butcher the term "exist" so badly that it can no longer be used in any meaningful way.

Let me put it this way. Say "Heaven" exists, but we cannot detect it. Then how can you possibly know anything about this "Heaven"? How can you even come up with a coherent definition of the term if you can't observe any of its properties and thus set it apart from other existent things?

Do you believe in floobagon? Floobagon is completely invisible, completely unobservable, and completely undetectable. We cannot say anything about floobagon because we can't extract any knowledge about floobagon from the universe. I can't define floobagon, and neither can you. Floobagon is completely indistinguishable from leprechauns, unicorns, Zeus, perpetual motion machines, and other non-existent things. But you can't PROVE that floobagon doesn't exist. Maybe floobagon is right in front of us but we are blind to it. Think about it.

Doesn't that sound ludicrous? It should. If you're going to postulate the existence of something, first define what it is by listing some of its properties, and then demonstrate that it is distinguishable from non-existent things. If there is no way to demonstrably distinguish it from non-existent things, then it is non-existent.

Question everything

1st February 2007, 22:47

far as I'm concerned, the unobservable and the non-existent are identical.

soo my friend... if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound :P

La ComÃ©die Noire

1st February 2007, 22:59

I love when people resort to the dictionary for these kind of arguments.

I was just merley pointing out that personality and soul could be viewed as pretty much the same concepts and I love when people have to resort to one liner rebuttles, effectively ignoring all aspects of the post because they can't argue it. Come on, take on the whole post.

If you don't want to believe in a seperate soul then don't. It's really your choice.

How do you know it's my choice? Maybe I am a believer, like you, just waiting for someone to verify my beleifs. :huh:

Food for thought.

Question everything

1st February 2007, 23:20

How do you know it's my choice? Maybe I am a believer, like you, just waiting for someone to verify my beleifs.
:huh:
Food for thought.

:( I've been trying... :P

C.R.M

2nd February 2007, 06:05

to be reasonable no the likelyness of humans having a soul is slim to none but one thing does strike me odd when a person dies they lose twenty one grams of weight

Eleutherios

2nd February 2007, 06:22

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 01, 2007 10:47 pm

far as I'm concerned, the unobservable and the non-existent are identical.

soo my friend... if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound :P
Yes, because acoustic vibrations are in principle observable. Heaven, souls, gods, demons, etc. are not observable. Your point?

Eleutherios

2nd February 2007, 06:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:05 am
to be reasonable no the likelyness of humans having a soul is slim to none but one thing does strike me odd when a person dies they lose twenty one grams of weight
:lol: Sorry to burst your bubble dude, but that's just an urban legend. Don't believe everything you hear.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

Question everything

2nd February 2007, 14:25

Yes, because acoustic vibrations are in principle observable. Heaven, souls, gods, demons, etc. are not observable. Your point?

but it was un-observed, and un-heard, yet it your opinion it still existed?

Eleutherios

2nd February 2007, 17:42

Yes, it existed because it had a measurable impact on things which we can, in principle, sense. The fact that we happened to not notice the way the vibrations changed our surroundings does not affect their objective existence. However, if it was something that was in principle unobservable because it did not alter any of the detectable information in the universe, then it could not have been said to exist.

La ComÃ©die Noire

2nd February 2007, 21:14

sad.gif I've been trying... tongue.gif

To be critical of ones beliefs is to love the divine more than the comfort that simply comes with the idea. In short, It's becoming spiritualy mature.

That could also be said.

ichneumon

2nd February 2007, 22:48

"Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness"

"Atman" being the Sanskrit word for "soul". Your atman is not your memories, your personality, your body nor your identity. If you have complete amnesia, your atman remains. It is the same at birth, when you are barely sentient, as now. Since it isn't "attached" to any part of what you consider you, it is believed that it can survive after the body. This is a Hindu concept

Buddhist consider the belief in the soul, that a person has self-only-ness, to be the root of all suffering. ""Ātman" is a conceptual attachment to oneself that promotes a false belief that one is intrinsic and without incident."

"ātman is identified as existing as a concept - more specifically, as a cognitive obscuration; moreover, it is this specific cognitive obscuration which is identified as being the root cause of all suffering."

But of course, Buddhism is a religion, and all religions are crap and know nothing about anything, right?

La ComÃ©die Noire

3rd February 2007, 00:02

Buddhist consider the belief in the soul, that a person has self-only-ness, to be the root of all suffering.

I thought buddhist believed want or craving was the cause of all suffering?

ichneumon

3rd February 2007, 02:16

buddhistically, clinging to the idea that one has a soul or that there is an afterlife is a kind of desire, which leads to suffering, and is thus not recommended. there are lots of esoteric schools of epistemology, etc.

the buddha made it clear that worrying about that kind of BS (souls, afterlife, metaphysics in general) was pointless if you are actually still suffering yourself. you don't ask "who made this arrow?" when the arrow is sticking out of your chest. nevertheless, it seem that a body of research on the subject has been accumulated. your mileage may vary.

3rd February 2007, 02:58

you don't ask "who made this arrow?" when the arrow is sticking out of your chest.

I like how you said that.

But I'm not really a believer. I'm what any opinionated person with a computer is, an asshole.

Question everything

6th February 2007, 00:49

you don't ask "who made this arrow?" when the arrow is sticking out of your chest.

I heard the same thing but in a different context...

To be critical of ones beliefs is to love the divine more than the comfort that simply comes with the idea. In short, It's becoming spiritualy mature.

I was only joking :P besides if I was not crital of my beliefs I would not be here (for both obvious reasons and a not so-long, long story)

Yes, it existed because it had a measurable impact on things which we can, in principle, sense. The fact that we happened to not notice the way the vibrations changed our surroundings does not affect their objective existence. However, if it was something that was in principle unobservable because it did not alter any of the detectable information in the universe, then it could not have been said to exist.

but, we cannot sense it as easy... think along the lines of 6th sense, "Miracles" have happened, rarely, more often a fraud than truth, but there are things that happen that cannot be explained...

Eleutherios

6th February 2007, 05:41

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 06, 2007 12:49 am
but, we cannot sense it as easy... think along the lines of 6th sense,
I didn't like that movie.

"Miracles" have happened, rarely, more often a fraud than truth, but there are things that happen that cannot be explained...
Please give me some examples of events you consider "miracles", and why you consider these miracles to not be frauds like the rest of them.

Sure, there are things that happen that nobody has ever been able to explain, but that doesn't mean there's anything supernatural out there. Miracles do not happen. When we don't know the natural cause of some event, that just means that we don't have sufficient information to provide the correct explanation for what happened.

There are magicians out there who do acts that completely boggle my imagination. They seem to be doing things that are nothing short of miraculous, and I have no idea where to even begin figuring out the series of natural events that leads to the spectacular illusion of a miracle. But I don't presume that just because I or anybody else can't figure out what's going on, that there must be something supernatural involved.

It's not just magicians and charlatans who deceive us like this, but reality itself. The religious say "I don't know, you don't know, and nobody will ever know, because this is unexplainable now and forever". Some people embrace ignorance in the face of mystery, but the scientist and the rationalist are not content with such cheap cop-outs. They say instead "I don't know, you don't know, but there has to be some explanation, so let's try our damned hardest to figure out what it is!"

ichneumon

6th February 2007, 21:57

Sure, there are things that happen that nobody has ever been able to explain, but that doesn't mean there's anything supernatural out there. Miracles do not happen. When we don't know the natural cause of some event, that just means that we don't have sufficient information to provide the correct explanation for what happened.

miracles are supernatural, supernatural things don't exist, miracles don't exist

semantics

is the human mind capable of understanding every phenomenon in the universe? probably not. is our logic capable of describing such? our own science says no. there will always be phenomena that defy human comprehension or description. i think we can safely call these "miracles". on the other hand, weeping statues are most likely not miracles, but who am i to judge? i don't even understand how my own mind functions (and, btw, neither do you).

Some people embrace ignorance in the face of mystery, but the scientist and the rationalist are not content with such cheap cop-outs. They say instead "I don't know, you don't know, but there has to be some explanation, so let's try our damned hardest to figure out what it is!"

scientifically speaking, no, there does NOT have to be an explanation. the universe is unproblematic, but human understanding is inherently limited. also, in science, untestable questions are just not interesting. such as "do i have a soul"? or "is there a god?" if you can't do an experiment, it's not important, don't worry about it.

Question everything

22nd February 2007, 22:16

I've got an open mind they may or may not exist the point is we have souls :D chalk 1 up for the theists :P

Eleutherios

23rd February 2007, 10:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:57 pm
miracles are supernatural, supernatural things don't exist, miracles don't exist

semantics
No, not semantics. Logic.

is the human mind capable of understanding every phenomenon in the universe? probably not. is our logic capable of describing such? our own science says no. there will always be phenomena that defy human comprehension or description. i think we can safely call these "miracles".
Then I think you're misusing the term "miracle". Just because nobody has yet figured out what dark matter is, that makes dark matter a miracle? Please explain!

scientifically speaking, no, there does NOT have to be an explanation. the universe is unproblematic, but human understanding is inherently limited. also, in science, untestable questions are just not interesting. such as "do i have a soul"? or "is there a god?" if you can't do an experiment, it's not important, don't worry about it.
Why do you insist that experiments cannot be done to prove or disprove the existence of souls or gods? If we can define what a soul or a god is and predict how it will interact with our universe from its attributes, then we can do experiments and gather information that could potentially falsify those ideas. And experiments have been done and observations have been gathered that disprove both souls and gods.

The fact that physical damage to the brain causes damage to our personalities, thoughts, and emotions proves that these are very real, very physical processes going on in our physical brains. Also, the fact that the introduction of intoxicating chemicals can alter these functions proves that they are physical processes that are affected by physical molecules in a predictable way. This debunks the soul hypothesis, which says that thought, emotion and memory are stored in some non-physical entity that is not subject to the laws of physics.

As for gods, you have to define what you mean by "god" first. It is very frustrating how often theists try to hide behind the fact that this term is so nebulous that nobody can seem to define it. Without a definition, of course, nobody can disprove it. Define what you mean by a "god" and then we can talk about whether or not it is feasible to determine its existence by experimentation or observation.

I think, at least, that the traditional Judeo-Islamo-Christian God has been thoroughly disproven beyond any shadow of a doubt. Anybody who owns a newspaper can see that the world is severely lacking in omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent forces.

Question everything

26th February 2007, 02:17

ichneumon

26th February 2007, 03:56

No, not semantics. Logic.

so, if god appears in a shaft of light and starts smiting sinners, it's not supernatural? is the definition of "supernatural" based on science? ie, if it's not understood or even understandable NOW, does that matter? if supernatural means "outside the laws of physics", what are these laws? what if there is no grand unified theory?

i find the whole thing silly. sometimes it rains frogs, so what?

The fact that physical damage to the brain causes damage to our personalities, thoughts, and emotions proves that these are very real, very physical processes going on in our physical brains. Also, the fact that the introduction of intoxicating chemicals can alter these functions proves that they are physical processes that are affected by physical molecules in a predictable way. This debunks the soul hypothesis, which says that thought, emotion and memory are stored in some non-physical entity that is not subject to the laws of physics.

the hindu soul, the atman, is very specifically defined as having nothing to do with your memories or personality. frankly, if science had some opinion about the existence of souls or gods, it would be in Science or Nature, front page, with references. it's not. if you don't have a repeated experiment backed with good statistics and LOTS of references, you have no science. it's not some pie in the sky logic game. that's philosophy.

This debunks the soul hypothesis, which says that thought, emotion and memory are stored in some non-physical entity that is not subject to the laws of physics.

uh, fyi, science has NO IDEA how memories are stored. the quantum wave front idea is still very much at large. and, again, which laws? 2007 laws or 1907 laws, cause they are VERY different things. ultimate laws - when? where? so why can't i just call it "soul"? do you have a better term? what's the fuss about?

frankly, it just bugs me when people want to use SCIENCE!!! as some kind of political tool.

How do we know that communism isn't a real science?
Because if it were, they would have tested it on dogs first.

yuckyuck

wtfm8lol

26th February 2007, 23:22

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 25, 2007 09:17 pm
For free will to exist, there must be a soul...otherwise would every action simply be a result of Hormones and other chemicals... as for a God, I just think that there may well be something that exists, probably not in the sense that most theist believe in, but just an essence?
Throwing in a mysterious entity such as a soul does not help the existence of free will. Souls, if they existed, would still have to operate according to the rules of whatever they happened to be made.

Question everything

27th February 2007, 00:37

I suppose it is simply my opinion but I usually think of a soul as free will... the thought that exists beyond chemical reactions, and hormones... feel free to argue

wtfm8lol

27th February 2007, 00:39

Lol, free will is a concept. A soul can't literally be free will or it is also just a concept.

Question everything

27th February 2007, 01:12

then the soul is a Goddamn concept :P I'm simplying saying that if free will exists there must be a part of the brain that is not simply chemical reactions, hence either there is a soul or some force that cannot be entirely effected by bodily changes

MrDoom

27th February 2007, 02:06

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 27, 2007 12:37 am
the thought that exists beyond chemical reactions, and hormones... feel free to argue
Thought is chemical reaction.

With sufficient knowledge, it would even be possible to rearrange the atoms/molecules/etc. of one's brain to give them false or modified memories, remove memories, arbitrary emotions, etc.

Even, possibly, changing or destroying a person's very identity and reforming it as we please.

wtfm8lol

27th February 2007, 02:12

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 26, 2007 08:12 pm
then the soul is a Goddamn concept :P I'm simplying saying that if free will exists there must be a part of the brain that is not simply chemical reactions, hence either there is a soul or some force that cannot be entirely effected by bodily changes
Yes, I know you would have to pull some impossibilities to make free will exist, but there's really no need to discuss them.

Publius

27th February 2007, 03:09

I am far from an expert on these things but let me take a crack at it... there are a few points here, first of all nobody knows right from wrong when they are born... Nobody is willing to claim that they did... these children were isolated and not taught the difference (between right and wrong), since right and wrong were society's invention

Wait up.

How can 'society' invent something? Surely that conflation means that individuals in society invent something, and then it's adopted by society, correct? But you're stuck admitting that individuals, and NOT society 'invented' morality, which of course contradicts your original point.

Either morals have always existed, or they were created at some point (simple dichotomy.) Since it's been shown that 'society' can't invent anything, only individuals can, it then follows that since morality hasn't always existed (there had to be a point at which they didn't), that someone thought up morals, or they have an alternative explanation, say, evolution, perhaps.

What say you?

(whether or not you believe in God, laws and rites of worship were invented by society)

Again, muddled thinking.

They are manifested through society, it's true, and the reasons you have a particularly moral code are sociological, but morality itself, the fact that human beings have this idea of 'morality' is based on evolution and biology, to a large degree.

there is no way that a person isolated from the world would pick up on it...

Nature. Also, there exist people (psychopaths) who do not, or cannot, 'learn morality', or rather, empathy.

All of this clearly contradicts the notion that we simply 'get morality' from society.

as for the soul, (I think that it is) Buddists believe in two levels of the soul, one that stay with one and becomes the ego (and I will from now on refer to this soul as the ego) and another that is divine, each time we die, our egos lose their identity and begin life again, and through out that life our ego seeks to find our (divine) soul. This meaning that the "Feral children"s' ego (soul or indentity) is with out arguement warped, so they do not seek their divine halves, (if my minimal knowlage on the subjet is correct) so they will in their next life begin that divine journy again

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, so I'll pass on it.

Publius

27th February 2007, 03:22

For free will to exist, there must be a soul...otherwise would every action simply be a result of Hormones and other chemicals... as for a God, I just think that there may well be something that exists, probably not in the sense that most theist believe in, but just an essence?

Let me see if I get what you're saying? The soul must exist because free will exists, and free will cannot have a cause, that is, your decision to say, eat an apple cannot be correlated on based entirely on a specific brain-state, for if it were, you wouldn't be making the choice of your own volition, you would simply be a 'clockwork orange' to further ruin the fruit analogy.

But this doesn't make sense. The opposition (Dichotomies abound. I'm like fucking Hegel today.) to that view would have be a lack of a cause, that is to say, a random event. Either your decision is predicated on a previous action (is determined) or it isn't (it's random.)

But I'm willing to bet neither of those ideas strike you as 'free will.' I maintain that this is because the entire concept is confused. Think about it for a second, you'll be impelled by the force of my logic to re-think things.

It's my belief that the general use (but not necessarily every use; Dennet goes around this) of free will is impossible, something akin to an 'uncaused cause.' You want an event that isn't random, but isn't non-random, that isn't determined but isn't undetermined.

And then there's always the third possibility that we simply don't know enough to meaningfully discuss the issue, likely since my knowledge of the issued is very limited, yours likely moreso.