The Soul

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Pythagorean

nameless,

Sorry, but I can not really be a partner in such a hateful discussion because such discussion is against the rules of the forum as set down by its owner.

Your post is very cruel and not thoughtful at all. I really don't appreciate the gratuitous invective and name-calling.

I am sorry that you are so egoically involved that you cannot rationally respond to thoughtful and valid criticism without getting all defensive and emotional. I made valid points that you choose to ignore under guise of blah, blah, hateful (ridiculous! there is no 'hate' involved, unless it is in you), name-calling and invective (hardly)..
An egoic/emotional cop out is what you offer here..
Care to offer specific examples? To say that someone is 'ignorant' on a subject, for instance, would you call that 'namecalling'? I call it an observation. I guess it depends on the delicacy of the 'ego' involved.

More importantly, science does not even demand that the soul doesn't exist, there are many great scientists who are active today who believe.

There are many scientists who believe in the FSM. So what? Does that mean something?

Any decent and intelligent person would know this.

Gee, now who's doing the name-calling (by implication)

Religion doesn't refute science

Not 'doesn't', can't.

and science doesn't refute religion

In many aspects, it actually does just that.

or else one would abolish the other.

No, 'beliefs' are not available to rational and logical correction. They are insularly self-contained.

Your thoughtless and cruel attitude doesn't really have a place in this forum in my opinion.

Duck, evade, hide, defend, tattle, whatever works for you for that with which you are incapable or unwilling to discuss.
I call a spade a spade, as I see it. I don't dissemble. Truth hurts. If it 'hurts' too much, perhaps a 'different play-ground'? (Something about the 'heat' and a 'kitchen'...) After all, that is all that has happened, about which you are whining. I will not dissemble to spare your delicate ego. This is a 'philosophy board' and ego is out of place here, delicate or otherwise, not honest discussion (unless it is about 'ego')...
in my opinion.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Aedes

...that's similarly outside the interest of science and more pertinent to one's hopes, fears, and religious beliefs.

Then why is this not under the religion section. It has nothing to do with the 'philosophy of mind' or anything necessarily philosophical. You are speaking of psychological processes, not critical thought!
(Not odd at all that other 'believers' 'thank' (agree) with you.)

hopes, fears, and religious beliefs.

Oh my!

[de_budding]

Nameless,

you certainly are starting throw your weight around now :P, and I can't help but feel you are keeping a belief from us which you are defending but not stating. All I gather from you so far is that a soul does not exist, is that all there is to it in your opinion?

Dan.

[Didymos Thomas]

nameless - We can have disagreements without abusing one another. There is no reason to be rude to someone who has been polite to you.

Would not logic assume then, that the claim should not have been made. Many such claims and the individual making them would be taken for town fool.

But we often accept claims to be true when no evidence can be presented.

Consider this - if I say 'Last night I dreamed that humans achieved world peace'. No information can be presented to validate the claim. We might have hooked me up to some machine that can determine whether or not I was in fact dreaming, but only I have the experience of the content of the dream.

Unless the claimant is a mad man, I cannot imagine how, having explained the dream to the best of his ability, we could have significant doubt about the accuracy of his claim.

[Ron C. de Weijze]

How about 'soul' as the integration of multiple perspectives? One hundred billion axons in each brain have 10,000 connections to other axons [1]. The meaningful networks they form, somehow validly and reliably represent the environment. They evolve all the time but are the only cells in the body which aren't replaced once every quarter. The 'maps' [2] that are developed, reuse the same objects as references, and eventually reuse the references themselves. This not only brings physical perspectives together, but can also account for synthesis of abstract thoughts and private definitions of one's situation. How else could enlightenment ever have begun? Of course we do have to monitor the validity and reliability of those perspectives. We do so by ourselves but also by critical examination of other people's perspectives.

[1] Samba Internet iA Notebook How the Mind Works: Revelations
[2] Cortical homunculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Paracelsus]

C. G.Jung postulated the existence of a collective unconscious, that continuing generations of humanity can draw upon the collective wisdom of the past, having given thought to this I believe that such symbolic transmission of knowledge and wisdom in relation to the human condition via the dream state is achieved though the structure of our DNA.

That is if such a thing as the collective unconscious exists then it exists within all of us and is not separated by time and space, that different planes and states of existence are not exterior to our human condition but are reached by turning inward and transcending both the limits of the body and the mind.

The Soul, like wise, is in my humble opinion an essence, a component of the vast ocean from which all life arises. I do not believe in a personalised immortality of an ego based after death existence that appeals to fears of nonexistence held by the followers of both Christianity and Islam, amongst many ego based religions.

If anything the spiritual is an innate aspect of the human condition which we all share. So for the Soul to exist it would have to be egoless, a tiny droplet in the sea of eternity, that is if there is one.

[boagie]

Nameless,

An honest discussion here when it comes remotely close to Christianity is called, Christian baiting,

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by nameless

Then why is this not under the religion section.

Who cares which section it's under?

(Not odd at all that other 'believers' 'thank' (agree) with you.)

I'm a stone cold atheist. The difference is that I'm nice about it.

Oh, and as a general principle it doesn't bother me that someone believes something that's either unsupported by science or even contradicted by it. I care what people do, not what they believe.

Oh my!

Exactly...

[midas77]

Originally Posted by Ramsey

No particular conception, I'm leaving it totally open to what ever conception one has.

Too bad. we might end up arguing and figthing for myriad of things. narrowing down the concept might help i nthe discussion

[de_budding]

Originally Posted by Ron C. de Weijze

How about 'soul' as the integration of multiple perspectives? One hundred billion axons in each brain have 10,000 connections to other axons [1]. The meaningful networks they form, somehow validly and reliably represent the environment. They evolve all the time but are the only cells in the body which aren't replaced once every quarter. The 'maps' [2] that are developed, reuse the same objects as references, and eventually reuse the references themselves. This not only brings physical perspectives together, but can also account for synthesis of abstract thoughts and private definitions of one's situation. How else could enlightenment ever have begun? Of course we do have to monitor the validity and reliability of those perspectives. We do so by ourselves but also by critical examination of other people's perspectives.

[1] Samba Internet iA Notebook How the Mind Works: Revelations
[2] Cortical homunculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hah! I use to think something like this, but I gave it up because I thought I didn't know enough about the brain. So if this is the case, what kind of cross-referencing software would we need installed on a computer to allow the computer consciousness? Or more often I wonder what algorithm or software would need to be introduced on the Internet to allow become self-aware. Are we any where near answers to these questions?

Dan.