FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Do you have a soul?





flintstonian
Sorry, I didn't mean the question to be funny, though it seems so now. Just that this is a very confusing concept to start enquiring into:

    Do we have souls? If we do, then why don't we 'feel' it? If we don't, then are all the various religious concepts regarding this wrong?
    Does Science have a view on this?
Indi
flintstonian wrote:
Does Science have a view on this?

No. If it cannot be observed, it cannot be scientifically considered (and no, the 21 grams myth is just that - a myth).
divinitywolf
21 grams myth? i havent heard of that. I belive we all have souls. Every living thing including animals and plants.
Macbeth
Isn't the 21 grams myth the part about when you die your body loses 21 grams of its weight?



I believe everything has a soul, For me its that feeling down deep when you consider something meaningful to you or are hurt by something someone has said or done.

Not sure if that made total sense O_o
Azmo
I think we feel our soul every singel day with our emotions.. and to get to know yourself is for me when you take time and realy try to find out how you feel about stuff, reaching down into your soul and find the answers.. for me, the mind, our brain, is for logical things.. things that can be explained, facts... and our sould is for emotions, feelings.. sometimes we feel in a certain way, and there is not possible to explain why we do that.. ye we got braindoctors and stuff like that that tell us why we feel this and that.. but it's for me still only a guess.. ehm,, anyways.. I think we do have a soul and that we feel it every singel day.. just not as they do in anime etc.. soul power Shocked
Whong
Everyone has a soul that continues to live even after we die. That soul will either go to Paradise or down to the Pit. Idea
Mr_CEO
Yes. We all have a soul. No, Science can’t explain it. Science can't decide what life is. Scientist say life is a microscopic organism on another planet but destroy life in a woman’s womb everyday. Why look to science for answers?
flintstonian
Mr_CEO wrote:
... Why look to science for answers?


Nicely put. But, where else would we look if we wanted realistic, reliable answers?
mike1reynolds
What are the realistic answers that science gives about love or justice?

It is the wrong tool for the job my friend. Only geeks try to apply engineering diagrams to philosophical questions.
trousersalive
Sciences job is to explain how and why things happen in physical terms. Religions job is to fill in the gaps where science has yet to go. As science explains more and more religion has less and less of a job. You can rest assured that science will explain the strange necessity of humans to feel they have a 'soul' all in good time. Invoking supernatural explanations to explain a physical feeling doesnt make a whole lot of sense.
Bikerman
Mr_CEO wrote:
Yes. We all have a soul. No, Science can’t explain it. Science can't decide what life is. Scientist say life is a microscopic organism on another planet but destroy life in a woman’s womb everyday. Why look to science for answers?

If scientists can't explain what life is then how could they comment about extraterrestrial life (other than speculation)? Life is defined in science quite specifically and the Wikki definition is a reasonable summary :
Quote:
is a condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
Science certainly does not destroy life as you suggest - people do that using whatever tools and techniques they have been taught. Science is not directly relevant to the issue since abortions can and have been carried out using highly unscientific methodologies in the past.
flintstonian
Ten opinions later, I'm still confused. I'll simplify my initial query:
    Can we define what soul is?

Okay, I already checked Wikipedia. I didn't really understand that definition either.

Confused dumb, ain't I?
Indi
mike1reynolds wrote:
It is the wrong tool for the job my friend. Only geeks try to apply engineering diagrams to philosophical questions.

Or Cantorian set theory to God? ^_^;
Bikerman
flintstonian wrote:
Ten opinions later, I'm still confused. I'll simplify my initial query:
    Can we define what soul is?

Okay, I already checked Wikipedia. I didn't really understand that definition either.

Confused dumb, ain't I?


In order :
a) I do not think a solid definition is possible
b) No, not understanding something is not dumb....not understanding and not being willing to remedy the fact - that would be dumb
trousersalive
The concept of possessing a soul seems to be a requirement for (most) humans to feel good about themselves. It allows us to feel that we are somehow superior to all other life on earth and therefore gives us positive reinforcement with regards to our self image.
Of course if you make the assumption that the soul does exist (in the absence of evidence...) there is no real definition other than it is what makes you feel human (as opposed to just another mammal).
The Conspirator
Its not about feeling good or feeling superior, its about surviving death, that some part of you will survive even when you body has die.
Liambaby
but do we all believe that we have a soul, or are we just so scared that after death, that's it, so we invent a means in which we may live on eternally. is it all just a man-made concept, like religion, formed out of a need to believe that life has a purpose? death is a scary thing, and any way to make it easier to accept must surely be a relief, ergo man creates this notion of a soul, instead saying that death isn't the end, merely a milestone. of course, I could be talking rubbish, and will head straight to 'the pit' when I meet my end, for doubting religion.
Soulfire
But you all should know that there are very (emphasis on VERY) few things 100% proven, if anything.
mike1reynolds
Indi wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
It is the wrong tool for the job my friend. Only geeks try to apply engineering diagrams to philosophical questions.

Or Cantorian set theory to God? ^_^;

We never got that far, we never got past the fact that you deny that "all" exists. Laughing Laughing Laughing

Indi not only disproved Set Theory, exclusively by personal innuendo against it's inventor from 3 centuries ago, even though Set Theory is still cutting edge mathematics, but he also disproved the existence of "everything". There is no such thing as "everything", according to Indi.

Cantor dealt with much more than science, which is why his whole generation of scientists summarily dismissed all of Cantor's work, precisely because, just as Indi, they didn't like the profound philosophical implications of his work.

Some scientists are more than just geeks. They are very few an far between, but there are some.
Indi
mike1reynolds wrote:
Indi wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
It is the wrong tool for the job my friend. Only geeks try to apply engineering diagrams to philosophical questions.

Or Cantorian set theory to God? ^_^;

We never got that far, we never got past the fact that you deny that "all" exists. Laughing Laughing Laughing

Indi not only disproved Set Theory, exclusively by personal innuendo against it's inventor from 3 centuries ago, even though Set Theory is still cutting edge mathematics, but he also disproved the existence of "everything". There is no such thing as "everything", according to Indi.

Cantor dealt with much more than science, which is why his whole generation of scientists summarily dismissed all of Cantor's work, precisely because, just as Indi, they didn't like the profound philosophical implications of his work.

Some scientists are more than just geeks. They are very few an far between, but there are some.

Stop putting words in my mouth and lying about what i said.
mike1reynolds
I’ll help you out, Flinstonian. I’ve given this subject a lot of thought the last few months and I’m going to use both Shamanist and religious examples to explain. First of all, any definition of soul that fails to make any distinction between soul and spirit is complete garbage. The definitions of soul and spirit hinge on each other and must be distinct in order to capture the full meaning of what is going on here.

I’m going to refer to the Trinity and Hinduism later, but to start I’m going to describe some esoteric facts about Carlos Castaneda’s description of Nagualism and Yaqui shamanism. Nagualism is focused on developing the 2nd and 3rd “attention”. The second attention is your “dreaming” attention, the spirit world, but Nagualists recognize that the ancient seers who focused exclusively on this were also exclusively evil. What makes the “New Seers” superior to those “Old Seers” of ancient Mezo-America is the third attention, which they never define in anything like the precise terms that they define the second attention. All they say about the 3rd attention is that it is much more mysterious and that it is where the “path with a heart” lies.

In contrast to the three attentions, Nagualists only focus on two bodies, the physical body and the energy body or double (more aptly called the spirit). They never refer to a “triple” which would properly correspond to the soul. They also deny the existence of God.

Hinduism refers to both Brahma and the true Self or soul as being eternal and unchanging, even if one’s spirit is totally and completely out of alignment with one’s soul. If the “triple” is unchanging and eternal then it makes sense that Nagualists would have a hard time thinking of soul in the same bodily terms they think of spirit and physical form. If the soul doesn’t change it doesn’t “move” much less walk around, the way the body and the “double” do. Thus Nagualists have no concept of the “triple” and their parallel to an understanding of the soul is fragmented at best, even though they make a clearer distinction between spirit and soul than any religion does (i.e. orthodox religious notions are fragmented too).

The Trinity, one of the most misunderstood concepts in Christianity, refers to the soul, spirit and physical natures of God. The soul is eternal and unchanging, as is the Holy Father. The Holy Spirit is obvious a spirit and the Son is (or was) obviously a physical person.

Another way of looking at this is in terms of “time travel”. We are all part of God, but there are three different aspects of our collective and individual divine nature. There is us in the finite here and now as the Son or Daughter. Then there is us in the transfinite infinity of time, the Holy Spirit is our collective consciousness unbound by time, both in the infinite future and in the present. However, there is more than one dimension of time. Time travel is real, as are time wars, even if time travel is only possible for the spirit and where in time it decides to incarnate. At the Absolute Infinity of all temporal dimensions, after an infinite number of time wars, there is the Holy Father. The Holy Father is our collective soul nature at the infinite future of all dimensions of time.

(Note: there have to be multiple temporal dimensions according to modern physics, especially in the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment, where the cat is simultaneously both alive and dead in two concurrently existing time streams. Every quantum decisions bifurcates a pair of time streams like this.)
mike1reynolds
Indi wrote:
Stop putting words in my mouth and lying about what i said.

If I have falsely portrayed the primary thrust of your counter argument then please correct me. It is just as relevant here as it was there.
Revvion
If souls exist i dont know and science not proving it dousnt say a thing. You cant prove something dousnt exist only that something exist so I dont think you will have to even find prove. then again what is a soul? it could be seen as something different by everybody.
trousersalive
Revvion wrote:
If souls exist i dont know and science not proving it dousnt say a thing. You cant prove something dousnt exist only that something exist so I dont think you will have to even find prove. then again what is a soul? it could be seen as something different by everybody.


It is true that it is very difficult to prove the non-existence of something. However we must approach all problems in life (and philosophy) logically and if no evidence exists for something why would there be an assumption that it does exist. We must apply Occam's Razor to all such problems. The existence of Bertrand Russels celestial teapot is a similar problem.
stone1343
Since this question can only be treated as a poll, here's what I think:

No, we have no soul or spirit or whatever you want to call it. We are animals, like cats or any other animal. There is no aftelife, when we die, that's it.

I think people like the idea of a soul because it's re-assuring to think that your loved ones are in a "better place", it gives our lives meaning and because we're self-centred (not meant in a bad way, we just can't imagine the world without ourselves in it).

I have a simple view of life, based on the science that we know today:

Life as we know it today evolved over billions of years. Things could have gone differently so many times and we may never have existed. We do have traits which separate us from animals (sense of humour, self awareness, language...) but that doesn't mean we have a soul. Even if you don't consider heaven & hell real places, the idea of eternal life in heaven seems totally unbearable to me. What would that "life" be? Sitting around eating strawberries & chocolate? Life is about the challenges of the here & now. "Heaven" would have to be some kind of reward, but I'm sorry, I think an eternity of anything, even the most pleasant thing you'd choose, would be absolutely unbearable. The Christian view of salvation, that you only have to accept Christ as your saviour to get to heaven, is just as infinitely wrong as the concept of hell.

To me, the concept of a soul is completely linked to an afterlife. What do you think heaven is like, is it a real place, where is it, do you have a physical presence in heaven or are you just a bundle of awareness? What good is it, if you can't do the things that make life enojyable, like sex, eating, loving your children, bungee jumping or whatever.

Even to take the often-quoted Muslim vision, which I'm sure I don't understand (and I'm not mocking, just saying that I don't see the sense) , an eternity with 72 virgins. Where do the virgins' souls come from? Do the 72 female souls get 72 male virgins each? If I don't have a physical presence, what good are 72 virgins to me anyway? What about after the first week Smile , when they're no longer virgins? Or a month later, when they're nagging at me to get up off the coach and take out the garbage or fix up the leak in the clouds?
Shike
(I couldn't take the time to read all of the replies because of my 2 yr old)Ok, here is my definition of the soul,

That metaphysical force that drives each individual living being (including plants and animals). Everything contains this force, because it is everything.
Bikerman
Shike wrote:
(I couldn't take the time to read all of the replies because of my 2 yr old)Ok, here is my definition of the soul,

That metaphysical force that drives each individual living being (including plants and animals). Everything contains this force, because it is everything.

Everything includes non organic 'things', so presumably you would argue that rocks, water etc also have a 'soul'? If the soul drives the being would you also include the brain/mind in the soul since we know that certain 'drivers' of human behaviour are processed and result from specific areas of the brain and are physiological rather than metaphysical?
Mannix
Yes, and a soul is something you can feel. ...You can even see it in others. ...But... ...You can't find something if you run around with your eyes shut. ...So it kind of defeats the purpose of explaining it to those who refuse to understand.
Bikerman
Mannix wrote:
Yes, and a soul is something you can feel. ...You can even see it in others. ...But... ...You can't find something if you run around with your eyes shut.
...So it kind of defeats the purpose of explaining it to those who refuse to understand.

I refuse to accept irrational concepts without evidence, I don't refuse to understand anything. The whole point point, though, is based on an incorrect comparison. Plenty of blind people find things everyday - they sometimes need someone else to help or explain.
moworks2
flintstonian wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean the question to be funny, though it seems so now. Just that this is a very confusing concept to start enquiring into:

    Do we have souls? If we do, then why don't we 'feel' it? If we don't, then are all the various religious concepts regarding this wrong?
    Does Science have a view on this?


Seems like a bunch of rubbish to me...i think all the organized religions are rubbish as well...they haven't proven effective at all at what they profess to do, seems they confuse more than they clarify, seems they comfort those that don't want to think for themselves...and the soul or some higher self, is that who is talking to you when you see yourself do violent things, nasty things, like your better self showing you what good and evil are?...this immaturity and refusal to assume responsibility has existed for a gazillion years and where has it gotten humanity?...into the confused mess it's currently in...sorry to ruffle anyone's feathers, no disrespect intended...just how i see it...

M
eggg
I would say, if we have souls, then can can feel it, but having no experience without a soul, we would not be able to perceive its presence.

What happens after I die? What existed before the universe as we know it? Microcosm, macrocosm, eh? Where are you between two thoughts?
missdixy
I think we do have souls, even if I have no real proof for it.
Vrythramax
I know this post is spam, but what a wonderful question the author asked!

Personally I am going to refrain from comment as everytime I try to post to this particular forum I get into trouble.

I will however enjoy watching this thread Smile
abhiz
is it worth discussing about things that you know not
Vrythramax
abhiz wrote:
is it worth discussing about things that you know not


Discussing things we don't know about is part of the learning process in my opinion, now discussing things which can't be proven is another matter entirely, as it only leads to conjecture.
Shike
Bikerman wrote:
Shike wrote:
(I couldn't take the time to read all of the replies because of my 2 yr old)Ok, here is my definition of the soul,

That metaphysical force that drives each individual living being (including plants and animals). Everything contains this force, because it is everything.

Everything includes non organic 'things', so presumably you would argue that rocks, water etc also have a 'soul'? If the soul drives the being would you also include the brain/mind in the soul since we know that certain 'drivers' of human behaviour are processed and result from specific areas of the brain and are physiological rather than metaphysical?


Everything does have a soul, because the earth is a living organism and we are all part of that organism.
flintstonian
Well, mike1reynolds (pre-page) convinced me with his fantastic post that the initial question was over-simplified. It's just not a question of simple yes/no, or 'why don't I feel it?'.

I talked to a few guys about this, and one of them referred me to an idea from book. I read it, thought about it a bit, and thought I'd put it in this discussion. It goes like this:

    When we're awake and moving about, there's a feeling of 'I' and 'my' that we keep having - like, 'Okay, this was a good job that I did...' or 'Ouch, my head hurts...'
    When we dream, this 'I' feeling is in the dream too. What a person sees of hears during the dream are not real, of course, but the 'I' is still there to experience the feelings.
    When we have a dreamless sleep, we don't experience anything. But on waking up, one would usually feel, 'Oh, I slept well...' or, 'What a lousy night!...' So, the 'I' was there to experience the wellness of the sleep too.

So, the theory is, this feeling of 'I' which gushes forth inside us during waking, dreaming and sleeping, is the soul.

Actually, I'm paraphrasing from a religious text (I won't say which). Till here, the argument seems okay. Then the text goes on to say something more outrageous, so we'll leave that out.

For now, let's say - the feeling of 'I' that we have (like 'I'm talking', 'this is my body' etc) is the soul. I wonder how acceptable that would be...
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
(Note: there have to be multiple temporal dimensions according to modern physics, especially in the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment, where the cat is simultaneously both alive and dead in two concurrently existing time streams. Every quantum decisions bifurcates a pair of time streams like this.)

No, this is not the case. Quantum superposition does not imply separate time streams and quantum entanglement does not imply bifurcation of time.
moworks2
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
(Note: there have to be multiple temporal dimensions according to modern physics, especially in the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment, where the cat is simultaneously both alive and dead in two concurrently existing time streams. Every quantum decisions bifurcates a pair of time streams like this.)

No, this is not the case. Quantum superposition does not imply separate time streams and quantum entanglement does not imply bifurcation of time.


boy, i wish i knew what you guys were talking about...no, really. Smile

M
moworks2
flintstonian wrote:
Well, mike1reynolds (pre-page) convinced me with his fantastic post that the initial question was over-simplified. It's just not a question of simple yes/no, or 'why don't I feel it?'.

I talked to a few guys about this, and one of them referred me to an idea from book. I read it, thought about it a bit, and thought I'd put it in this discussion. It goes like this:

    When we're awake and moving about, there's a feeling of 'I' and 'my' that we keep having - like, 'Okay, this was a good job that I did...' or 'Ouch, my head hurts...'
    When we dream, this 'I' feeling is in the dream too. What a person sees of hears during the dream are not real, of course, but the 'I' is still there to experience the feelings.
    When we have a dreamless sleep, we don't experience anything. But on waking up, one would usually feel, 'Oh, I slept well...' or, 'What a lousy night!...' So, the 'I' was there to experience the wellness of the sleep too.

So, the theory is, this feeling of 'I' which gushes forth inside us during waking, dreaming and sleeping, is the soul.

Actually, I'm paraphrasing from a religious text (I won't say which). Till here, the argument seems okay. Then the text goes on to say something more outrageous, so we'll leave that out.

For now, let's say - the feeling of 'I' that we have (like 'I'm talking', 'this is my body' etc) is the soul. I wonder how acceptable that would be...


The "i" is thought. It's a mechanical process. It's something we are pulverized with in school, society, religious environments...It's getting it to 'go away' that might reveal any 'other worldly' events...no, the 'i' is not noble or holy...it's the self centered me always pawing for attention...the 'i' is thought, thought is memory, and memory always old...i wouldn't place too much value in it...

kind regards...
M
rfarrand
i believe that we have souls and that are souls live after our bodies move on. i believe in one true God and that either our souls are condemned to Hell or if we believe in God and that Jesus died for our sins and live for Him then our souls will sit with God and be with Him for ever and ever. I think we feel our souls everyday. What do you think that is, telling you that something is right or wrong. i believe that those are our souls and God telling us, giving us the morals we have or come to have in our lives.
flintstonian
moworks2 wrote:

The "i" is thought. It's a mechanical process...

Excatly. 'I' is a thought. But who is thinking?
What I meant was, the thinker who thinks 'I' is the soul.

Of course, this is just a theory, I don't really know what I just wrote Wink
The-Nisk
To the original Poster. Some people say that your soul is an imprint of yourself that moves on after you die...
I find that thought disturbing! Shocked
I think that everything I am, everything I represent is my soul.
me=my soul.
And I think it is the way I....hmm..."carry on" after my physical body dies....
any criticism? Very Happy
mike1reynolds
Schrödinger's famous statements are my reference. Do you doubt that he said what he did? If so, I can certainly give you an ABC reference for his statements, but I think you know very well that he obviously made the statement that I refer to.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
(Note: there have to be multiple temporal dimensions according to modern physics, especially in the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment, where the cat is simultaneously both alive and dead in two concurrently existing time streams. Every quantum decisions bifurcates a pair of time streams like this.)

No, this is not the case. Quantum superposition does not imply separate time streams and quantum entanglement does not imply bifurcation of time.
So you insist that Schrödinger was dead wrong?

I'll take Schrödinger's word over yours any day of the week.

Perhaps you can provide a link to some material showing Schrödinger mentioning bifurcating time streams?
The Schrödinger cat thought experiment was meant to demonstrate the concept of superposition and can also be used to think about entanglement. Neither of these concepts includes any notion of time bifurcating. The only thing I can think you might mean is the Everett Multi-Universe interpretation - which postulates that every-time a wave-function 'collapses' (according to the traditional Copenhagen interpretation) what is actually occurring is the creation of new universes which allow every possibility to occur. This gets around the problem of the collapsing wave-function which is required for the Copenhagen Interpretation and which is still doubted by many scientists. Perhaps that is what you mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger
mike1reynolds
Well, actually it is the reverse of bifurcation. A pealing away of time streams.

What do you think he meant when he insisted that for Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle to be genuinely true that both timestreams must physically coexist? How was he in any way equivocal about it?

My reference is Erwin himself, and it is well known. I'll ask again, he made a clear and unequivocal assertion, so where did he go wrong?
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Well, actually it is the reverse of bifurcation. A pealing away of time streams.

What do you think he meant when he insisted that for Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle to be genuinely true that both timestreams must physically coexist? How was he in any way equivocal about it?

My reference is Erwin himself, and it is well known. I'll ask again, he made a clear and unequivocal assertion, so where did he go wrong?


I'm still waiting for a reference.........
mike1reynolds
Are you confused about what Schrödinger asserted? It is an extremely famous statement, but if you insist I can provide with an ABC reference to his well known statement.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Are you confused about what Schrödinger asserted? It is an extremely famous statement, but if you insist I can provide with an ABC reference to his well known statement.

Yes please!
mike1reynolds
OK, you have me slightly, the articles on the subject really beat around the bush in an extremely equivocal manner. Here is a reference that is more to the point that I found contained in one of the Schrödinger's cat articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

So why is the notion of multiple temporal dimensions so abhorrent to you? You act as though it is something completely outside any notions of theoretical physics when it is part and parcel of super-string and membrane theory.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
OK, you have me slightly, the articles on the subject really beat around the bush in an extremely equivocal manner. Here is a reference that is more to the point that I found contained in one of the Schrödinger's cat articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics
That is the Everett Many Universe model that I have already described. The fact is you are, again, talking rubbish. Shrodinger never mentioned time bifurcation and it is not a part of quantum theory.
Your comment
Quote:
My reference is Erwin himself, and it is well known. I'll ask again, he made a clear and unequivocal assertion, so where did he go wrong?
is completely untrue in just about every respect.
mike1reynolds
You have to have no common sense at all to believe that having a cat simultaneously dead and alive is not bifurcation of time.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
You have to have no common sense at all to believe that having a cat simultaneously dead and alive is not bifurcation of time.

There is little point arguing with someone who lies constantly and then quickly skips onto another point when cornered.
Rules of quantum physics do not correspond to common sense, I thought that was fairly well known.
mike1reynolds
Coming from someone with no common sense, that is rich. Such hypocrisy!

You just splattered yourself with mud my friend, everyone knows what a polemicists you are. While I certainly suffer from an excess of passion, I never intentionally manipulate an argument even though I know I am patently wrong, unlike yourself.
Bikerman
Let's see, should we
Mike1Reynolds wrote:
(Note: there have to be multiple temporal dimensions according to modern physics, especially in the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment, where the cat is simultaneously both alive and dead in two concurrently existing time streams. Every quantum decisions bifurcates a pair of time streams like this.)
No there don't. No it isn't. No it doesn't.
Mike1Reynolds wrote:
Schrödinger's famous statements are my reference. Do you doubt that he said what he did? If so, I can certainly give you an ABC reference for his statements, but I think you know very well that he obviously made the statement that I refer to.

Again, completely untrue. No they weren't. Yes I do. No you can't. No I don't.
Mike1Reynolds wrote:
So you insist that Schrödinger was dead wrong?
No I don't because he never said anything of the sort.
Mike1Reynolds wrote:
Are you confused about what Schrödinger asserted? It is an extremely famous statement, but if you insist I can provide with an ABC reference to his well known statement.

More lies. No I'm not. No it isn't. No you can't.
Mike1Reynolds wrote:
What do you think he meant when he insisted that for Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle to be genuinely true that both timestreams must physically coexist? How was he in any way equivocal about it?
He didn't. He wasn't because he didn't.
Mike1Reynolds wrote:
My reference is Erwin himself, and it is well known. I'll ask again, he made a clear and unequivocal assertion, so where did he go wrong?
No it wasn't. No it isn't. No he didn't, so he didn't.

And that's just on this page.....
mike1reynolds
Can't find a girl, huh? Laughing

Vicki and Teresa got a good laugh out of your post.

"He did. I ddn't. You won't. I would, but I can't. I will but I won't."

They think you are quite the jester!
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
I never intentionally manipulate an argument even though I know I am patently wrong, unlike yourself.

Hmm...well people can look through my postings and see if I admit when I'm shown to be in error - that way they can decide for themselves. They can then compare your postings and arrive at their own conclusions.
One other matter we may as well clear up...
You say that you are
Quote:
someone with a degree in mathematics
and also
Quote:
I was the only undergrad hired by Dr. Michael F. Barnsley, often written about pioneer of Chaos Theory.
and also:
Quote:
BTW, I do have a Computer Science degree from Georgia Tech.

Two degrees eh? And you worked with the pioneer of Chaos Theory? Wow…very impressive. Since I’ve been completely open and confirmed my claimed qualifications, perhaps you could do the same so we can reassure those with nasty suspicious minds who may doubt your claims.
mike1reynolds
When I worked for Dr. Barnsley it was a campus job at minimum wage, so I’m not sure what kind of proof you are asking for. (And what proof did you give that you are a school teacher? We are just content to take your word for it, because, why would someone lie about such an unimpressive thing?) I was present at the funeral for Dr. Barnsley’s son in 1990 or 1991. His car was hit by a falling tree during a rain storm, a freak accident. He and his wife divorced a few years later. He still has a VERY pretty daughter who would be about 30 now. Last I saw of him he had appeared to fail in industry, Iterated Function Systems is no longer, and he was a professor at some university in Australia where he is still pursuing his life-long goal of fractal image compression. If you search REALLY REALLY hard you can actually still find demo programs from IFS inc that allow you to use his fractal image compression technique on any photo you choose. I guess he just dumped the product when he went out of business. It does give significantly better compression than JPG, but only by a factor of 50% to 75%. Nothing like the massive compression he was hoping for when I worked in his lab.

I was the first programmer hired by Intactix Inc, which went from being a 3 person company to the company with #4 market share in the space management and inventory control industry (an error in the business rules given to me by Target Corp., one of our clients, resulted in two wicker chairs in that shelf slot rather than one, and Dale Byrne, the owner, went to a Target to check it out, and sure enough, there were two wicker chairs in the slot instead of one. He knew it should be so, but he was still blown away by it somehow. At some level I think he still saw it just as abstract software rather than a real world program controling shelf space across the country.) At this point he bought out the company with the #2 market share Apollo, to overtake the #1 company, Logitech (not the mice company, I don’t know how they managed to keep the same name). I made Dale a millionare, and now that my health is *finally* starting to return, soon I will find a similar "vertical market" (there were fewer than a 1000 customers in the entire space management industry) to exploit in a similar manner. I wanted to do wherehousing space management, but CIM Vision swooped on this during my decade and a half of ill health.

Next I worked for Symantec, but not in just any branch of Symantec, but for the Peter Norton Group. They hated us because we had way to much power in the company in their opinion, less than 10% Symantec employees were part of the Peter Norton Group.

Then I worked for Hewlett Packard. Later I worked for AT&T Wireless. Those are the highlights, but I’m a contractor, working when I please, so I move around every year or two, taking long breaks in between. I really don’t like computers that much!


========================

I'm quite suprised that you can even become in school teacher without a masters degree. I thought the UK had a superior education system, but you would not be allowed to teach here. I pitty your poor students, they must get brow beaten quite a lot by your school marm ways.
Bikerman
And you graduated in? In which year? Where?
mike1reynolds
Georgia Tech, '89.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Georgia Tech, '89.

Computing or Maths? Or both as you claim?
mike1reynolds
I left all of my non-major classes for last. My last year was a morass of english classes, PE, history, some stupid one hour library thing, while I audited some graudate level classes to keep my sanity, such as 6150 (algorithm theory again, I loved 4150 so much, those are partically the only class numbers I can remember). So I got both degrees at once.
make_life_better
mike1reynolds wrote:
I'm quite suprised that you can even become in school teacher without a masters degree. I thought the UK had a superior education system, but you would not be allowed to teach here.


Actually, if you look worldwide at people's perceptions of the "quality" and level of taught degrees, certainly a few years ago a standard degree in the UK was felt by many to be the rough equivalent of a masters in the US; but that may have changed as the UK adopts more of a US-style education system. And that probabaly never did apply to the best institutions anyway, who have always maitained high standards in the UK and the US.
Bikerman
make_life_better wrote:
Actually, if you look worldwide at people's perceptions of the "quality" and level of taught degrees, certainly a few years ago a standard degree in the UK was felt by many to be the rough equivalent of a masters in the US; but that may have changed as the UK adopts more of a US-style education system. And that probabaly never did apply to the best institutions anyway, who have always maitained high standards in the UK and the US.

That's a view I have heard before and have some sympathy with. In my case, however, it is only fair to point out that my degree was from Manchester Uni but I actually studied at Warrington (Padgate) college. One famous ex-student is on record as saying 'the only qualification you needed to get into Padgate was to be breathing'.
Whilst that is a little harsh, I feel, I have never claimed or felt that any particular importance should be attached to my qualifications and I certainly don't think my degree is anything other than a bog standard Bachelor of Education degree. Most of the things I have learned (in life, as well as science and IT) have been learned since graduate days and although I am certainly not ashamed of my degree, it is not something I would attach too much importance to. I only raised the issue after being accused of lying about my occasional references to working life, and it is of no importance otherwise.
dravidan
as for me, i'd say that
a soul is how you interpret
your mental self ... your
ability to think, to reason,
to feel, to laugh, to cry,
to dream ... get it ... if
you think that it will go on
forever ... even after your
physical self loses its ...
"statefullness" Very Happy
then your point of view is
quite different from mine,
infact its the exact opposite
of it. I mean how can your
desktop boot if there are no
boot programs, drivers and
operating systems ... Smile
Kitten Kong
This whole idea that the brain is for thinking and the soul is for "feeling" or emotions is complete rubbish.

Every feeling you have is a result of chemical reactions in your body, your body reacts to certain stimuli, you feel a sense of loss when you lose something because if you didn't you wouldn't mind letting everything you know slip through your fingers, that is not a good method of survival.

If I feel sad I have some chocolate, that picks me up. Is it because my soul likes chocolate? of course not, it is because endorphins control my emotions.
mike1reynolds
Who said that all feelings come from the soul and all thoughts from the brain? Does lust and anger come from the soul? Does a profoundly new thought that no one has ever percieved before come only from your own brain?
flintstonian
mike1reynolds wrote:
Who said that all feelings come from the soul and all thoughts from the brain? Does lust and anger come from the soul? Does a profoundly new thought that no one has ever percieved before come only from your own brain?


Well, I guess we can think about it like this. 'Soul' is the source of consciousness that doesn't feel the emotions you said - it's pure and divine, and just 'sits behind' and 'lights up' the brain. The brain, which then generates our everyday consciousness (the mind), functions in the real world and grades down this purity somewhat, and thus we feel anger, lust etc...

This is perhaps why meditation practitioners seek to calm the mind, so that the 'grading down' of consciousness decreases, and we'd start to know the purity of the soul. It might also be because of this that great thoughts and inspirations come to people when the mind is calm...

How's that for a theory?
Bikerman
flintstonian wrote:
Well, I guess we can think about it like this. 'Soul' is the source of consciousness that doesn't feel the emotions you said - it's pure and divine, and just 'sits behind' and 'lights up' the brain. The brain, which then generates our everyday consciousness (the mind), functions in the real world and grades down this purity somewhat, and thus we feel anger, lust etc...

This is perhaps why meditation practitioners seek to calm the mind, so that the 'grading down' of consciousness decreases, and we'd start to know the purity of the soul. It might also be because of this that great thoughts and inspirations come to people when the mind is calm...

How's that for a theory?

It has a few problems. The main one would be that it increases the complexity of the problem of consciousness without providing any extra insight. The traditional model of consciousness is that it originates in the brain. If you want to posit an extra entity 'the soul' then unless it gives new insights (ie it allows us to explain and predict things which without it would not be possible) then Occam's Razor should be wielded and the extra entity should be discarded.
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
flintstonian wrote:
Well, I guess we can think about it like this. 'Soul' is the source of consciousness that doesn't feel the emotions you said - it's pure and divine, and just 'sits behind' and 'lights up' the brain. The brain, which then generates our everyday consciousness (the mind), functions in the real world and grades down this purity somewhat, and thus we feel anger, lust etc...

This is perhaps why meditation practitioners seek to calm the mind, so that the 'grading down' of consciousness decreases, and we'd start to know the purity of the soul. It might also be because of this that great thoughts and inspirations come to people when the mind is calm...

How's that for a theory?

It has a few problems. The main one would be that it increases the complexity of the problem of consciousness without providing any extra insight. The traditional model of consciousness is that it originates in the brain. If you want to posit an extra entity 'the soul' then unless it gives new insights (ie it allows us to explain and predict things which without it would not be possible) then Occam's Razor should be wielded and the extra entity should be discarded.

That's just the start of it.

The fundamental problem of dualism (believing the mind has a physical (brain/body) and non-physical ("soul", if you like, but i prefer mind because people get too emotional about the word "soul") component) is that in order for it to work, there must be an interaction between the physical universe and the non-physical universe.

Basically, the idea of dualism is that the mind may have dozens of components: thoughts, memory, emotions, and so on. But when you boil then all down to their fundamental components - when you reduce them - you will get two types of "things": physical and non-physical. You cannot reduce either any further. For example, you can't keep reducing the non-physical things to get purely physical things - like you can't take a thought and trace it all the way down to neuron interactions and nothing else - or you would be saying there's ultimately no non-physical component. And you can't reduce the physical stuff to non-physical stuff - you can't take the brain and and say it's not physical... because... well... it is. This is as opposed to physicalism, that says that ultimately everything reduces to physical stuff, and there's no non-physical stuff that can't be boiled down to something physical.

But here's the problem: how is it possible for two things that cannot be reduced to a common base thing to interact? In order for two things to interact, they have to have something in common.

Take a camera as an example. How is it possible for two things so different - light, which is made up of massless bosons, and the film, which is made up of atoms made up of fermions with mass - to interact? Light and ink molecules would seem to have no way to interact. However! They can both be reduced... to energy. Light by Planck's relation (e = hν) and the massive molecules by Einstein's (e = mc²). This is a gross simplification of the physics, but it explains the concept: interaction is possible because both of the seemingly disparate elements can be reduced to a common root, and the exchange of information happens along the common root element - photon energy is converted to molecular energy in various forms.

But as i just finished explaining, the fundamental postulate of dualism is that physical and non-physical aspects of the mind cannot be reduced to a single root. So... how can they interact?
trousersalive
Indi wrote:

But as i just finished explaining, the fundamental postulate of dualism is that physical and non-physical aspects of the mind cannot be reduced to a single root. So... how can they interact?


If one were to believe in such things as souls then surely it would be easy enough to say that there was a single root as with the light example - ie energy. This would of course mean that the soul was based in the physical universe in someway, but there is no reason to say that it doesnt. Just not as science may currently understand it.

Of course from a logical point of view the existence of a soul makes no sense at all but thats a whole nother story.
Related topics
Soul singer Luther Vandross dies
The fine line of soul time...
Is there such thing as a soul mate?
About soul, body, ghost. What do you think about this?
Soul Searcher - and your films
Soul Jazz
Bleach Soul Slayer A HL1 Modification
Do we have a soul?
Soul Knights RPG
Soul Knights RPG -RPG MAKER XP-
Your Soul and Your Spirit...Afterlife and Reincarnation
Anyone seen their soul or another? as on the telly...
Soul Seller - A short poem by myself (mathiaus)
Study of the Soul
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.