DescentBB

I think it was on the Science Channel several years ago, I can't remember for sure. It did freak me out when I watched the show however. I'll do some research and see what I can find out.

I'll vouch for tunnelcat. I seen that show on tv some years ago too. It was quite interesting.

I think an indicator of there being such things as souls are your instincts. You tend to do things without reason and that involves your subconsciousness. How do you know when to act, feel, or think of things that you have never learned before? How do you attain such widsom of certain things without ever having experiencing these things or even witnessing one going through these things in your own lifetime?

Some people can just feel it when something's happening, but they cannot pinpoint the cause of the feeling. How can they tell?

What about love? How is it when one person meets another and have that sense of butterflies in the stomach or that sense of \"feeling whole\" at that moment? (without thinking of sex! ) Or even across the internet when you've never met that special person personally, but yet you feel that there's a special connection between yourself and the person?
What is it that leads you to realize that this person you are talking to is someone you want to be with the rest of your life?

Some could be from instict, but what causes instinct? What makes you realize it's instinct you're acting on and not your own logical reasonings? Where does instinct come from?

excuse the drabble, i instinctively felt like spilling some stuff

roid wrote:the thing that seperates us from animals

It does not separate us from animals, at all. Intelligence (if only more than 1% of humans had it) is what separates us from animals, and only barely.

Do people who think souls exist think that the personality is integral to it, or a separate property?

If souls exist, who hands them out? (Who handed out Jeffery Dalmer's?)

Testiculese wrote:If souls exist, who hands them out? (Who handed out Jeffery Dalmer's?)

Testi, are you being coy?

Roid, your poll needs an agnostic option. I'm content to live with the question as one that is insoluble. This is not an issue of the answer being unknown. It's not that I'm indecisive. I'm decisive in my belief that the answer is unknowable. I've always found the question of ensoulment to be one that easily distracts us from the important task of moral consideration.

Kiran wrote:I think an indicator of there being such things as souls are your instincts. You tend to do things without reason and that involves your subconsciousness. How do you know when to act, feel, or think of things that you have never learned before? How do you attain such widsom of certain things without ever having experiencing these things or even witnessing one going through these things in your own lifetime?

Some people can just feel it when something's happening, but they cannot pinpoint the cause of the feeling. How can they tell?

What about love? How is it when one person meets another and have that sense of butterflies in the stomach or that sense of "feeling whole" at that moment? (without thinking of sex! ) Or even across the internet when you've never met that special person personally, but yet you feel that there's a special connection between yourself and the person?
What is it that leads you to realize that this person you are talking to is someone you want to be with the rest of your life?

Some could be from instict, but what causes instinct? What makes you realize it's instinct you're acting on and not your own logical reasonings? Where does instinct come from?

Some people would call that having a soul. But those people generally don't understand what a brain is.

Kiran wrote:What is it that leads you to realize that this person you are talking to is someone you want to be with the rest of your life?

Hormones, mixed with stupidity. And that's about it.

TIGERassault wrote:Some people would call that having a soul. But those people generally don't understand what a brain is.

LOL! and very well said!

Kiran wrote:...excuse the drabble, i instinctively felt like spilling some stuff

And I liked what you said.

Bee

Thanks! ^.^

to answer Roid's question:

As a scientist (and especially as a neuroscientist) I of course believe that we do not have a soul, at least in the sense of something eternal and separate from the body. I strongly believe all there is to our behavior, thoughts, and feelings can be fully explained by processes in the brain and the body. There are simply too many effects of brain damage that totally undermine any notions of the human consciousness as being something separate from the body that is undestroyable and monolithic and equipped with free will (as the idea of the soul would imply).

having said that, after our cat was recently run over and killed by a car I found myself praying for his safe passage. So, if I want to be honest with myself I have to accept that, at least on an emotional level, I do believe in something that can pass over and live on. I am just not sure what this something is: is it something eternal that goes to a mythical plane or something which I hope will find a sheltered place in my memory?

That's where I am now: somewhere between science and belief, and with the tentative solution that souls are created and exist only in interaction with others.

We all have \"free will\", are entitled to have \"faith\" and the \"right\" to believe in anything we choose.

Since \"faith\" is believing in something we can't prove, I choose to believe in a way that doesn't disturb my inner peace, sense of well being and desire to emotionally accept myself and others.

Palzon wrote: Roid, your poll needs an agnostic option. I'm content to live with the question as one that is insoluble. This is not an issue of the answer being unknown. It's not that I'm indecisive. I'm decisive in my belief that the answer is unknowable. I've always found the question of ensoulment to be one that easily distracts us from the important task of moral consideration.

Morals mean nothing without an objective.

Morals mean nothing without an objective.

No,no,no. No topic hijacks allowed!! Besides I think we did that one to death last year.
Pandora- Have you ever looked on the soul or spirit or whatever in terms of a computer program. If you install it in a low power processor like an ant. All you can get to operate is a bundle of instinctive behaviour. Install it in a more complex operating system and you can enable many more functions, up to the limit of that processor. Damage the processor and the functionality gets messed up but the whole program still exists in some dimension where programs get stored (don't ask where that is. It spoils the analogy ). Humans might be a high level processor but maybe the whole software bundle would operate better in a processor without physical limits ie Nirvana.
Just a thought.

I guess when you think about it, all of the mobile organisms (not sure about plants) on this planet are essentially organic carbon-based machines that are run by a form of self-modifying hardware and software.

Whether the software part of the organism can be called a \"soul\" is a question for philosophers at the moment. But you have to think, where does all that accumulated knowledge, the software, go when you die? Does it just evaporate or can it become some kind of corporeal energy.

Which raises another question. Does this 'energy' exist as a giant pool of energy or information in the universe that can be reused for the programming of new organisms that are formed, possibly even on other planets?

Like your body turns into dust... so does your knowledge.

Ford Prefect wrote:Pandora- Have you ever looked on the soul or spirit or whatever in terms of a computer program. If you install it in a low power processor like an ant. All you can get to operate is a bundle of instinctive behaviour. Install it in a more complex operating system and you can enable many more functions, up to the limit of that processor. Damage the processor and the functionality gets messed up but the whole program still exists in some dimension where programs get stored.

Good point. So basically the soul would act as transmitter, and the brain as a receiver (and vice versa), and if certain parts of the brain are damaged then it does not get certain parts of the message or send them back to the soul?

I think you can get quite far with such an idea. But consider the case of split-brain patients. These people have suffered from such extreme cases of epilepsy that they could only be saved by cutting their corpus callusum, which contains all connections between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. This procedure prevents seizures from spreading across the whole brain, but - remarkably - lets the people lead a normal life without any major deficits. Nevertheless, it can be shown that the bodies of these people are in fact controlled by two independent consciousnesses (that usually act in synchrony). If I remember correctly, a classical experiment is to present the word "houseboat" in a way that the word "house" only appears in the left visual field of the patients (which projects to the right hemisphere) and the word "boat" in the right (and therefore will be projected to the left hemisphere). If you now ask the person to write what they have seen then their answer depends on which arm they are using. If you instruct them to use the left arm (which is controlled by the right hemisphere), they will write "house". If you ask them to write with their right arm (controlled by the left hemisphere), they will write "boat" --- what they won't do is write the word "houseboat".

Such a findings is of course problematic if you assume that the brain is driven by a soul because you might wonder why the soul could not tell the other hemisphere what the complete word is (after all it should have received both inputs). You would have to conclude one of three things:
(1) the soul has split together with the brain, so that one part of the soul now communicates only with the left hemisphere and the other only with the right hemisphere.
(2) The soul has not split, but cannot communicate with the brain about low-level things such as visual inputs or specific words. It might be restricted to communication of such things as emotions, motivations, or (a)moral impulses.
(3) The soul is only something like a flight recorder. It receives impressions from the brain but cannot communicate back and influence how the brain interacts with the world.

tunnelcat wrote:I guess when you think about it, all of the mobile organisms (not sure about plants) on this planet are essentially organic carbon-based machines that are run by a form of self-modifying hardware and software.

Whether the software part of the organism can be called a "soul" is a question for philosophers at the moment. But you have to think, where does all that accumulated knowledge, the software, go when you die? Does it just evaporate or can it become some kind of corporeal energy.

Which raises another question. Does this 'energy' exist as a giant pool of energy or information in the universe that can be reused for the programming of new organisms that are formed, possibly even on other planets?

you mean like a heavenly library?

when i write "butts butts butts butts" on a piece of paper, and then burn it, does that get added to the library too?

IMMA BURNING PAPERS, MESSIN UP UR SACRED LIBRARY WITH BUTTS

my point is information has no inherent value just coz it's "information". That sacred library could be full of lies and butts intermingled with 'soulfull' past knowledge.

Since our bodys and minds have no inherent SUBSTANCE to them, we are just made of other cells with lives of their own. We are just like a "conversation" between cells - they are talking to eachother and WE as entitys are just that conversation. When they stop talking, the conversation is over, and we die. Did we even exist in the first place? Remember we don't even have any substance that doesn't already belong to other lifeforms - our cells.

If all we are is a conversation between our cells. Is there really a "heaven" for such things?
Is every telephone conversation i ever had in heaven?

Not to mention the cells. Do they goto the same conversation heaven, are they just a conversation between proteins? and those proteins are just made of molecules, which are made of atoms, which are perhaps a conversation of subatomic particles, which are a conversation of quarks n ★■◆●, which are a conversation of strings (or whatever the latest theory is). There is nothing in here that isn't a part of a smaller universe, and those smaller entitys might object to being left out of conversation heaven. And can i and all of my components really ALL exist seperately in heaven at once, or won't their "souls" simply be integrated into mine as they were in life? Is that fair? Don't they deserve their own heaven seperate from me?


Isn't this afterlife stuff just an inability of us to accept the loss of something important to us? Books burn, they're lost, i'm sad. But do things/people goto heaven simply because they are important to us? That's rather self-indulgent of us.

Not sure if this will do anything for you roid, But one of my friends has medically died (Heart stopped) for around three minutes before being brought back and he said he could still hear things and such before being revived.

I think it goes deeper than anything we can physically prove, And it's unfortunate because i'd love to say there is evidence pointing to what i believe is real but that apparently isn't going to happen.

Remember E=mc(squared)? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. So when we die, the residual energy of our bodies either dissipates as heat loss to the atmosphere as our cells die or maybe some other type of energy transfer we yet don't understand occurs. That's the question, isn't it?

prettymuch

if there's some other type of energy transfer we yet don't understand that disipates, then what is it - tell me more about it - ie: how would it react to the situations described in the original post in this thread.
i must understand this thing

Pandora- I am familiar with the split brain phenomena through a bit of reading of Oliver Sacks and a university psychology course from about 3.5 decades ago. It is a good question to consider. Do the two halves have separate existence? Someone could certainly get a PHD thesis out of a study of long term split brain subjects to see if there were personality changes developing between the two halves of the brain. On another level though I doubt you could \"kill\" only one half of such a patient. Interesting though.
I was thinking of the software analogy as an imprint at the time of the creation of the living being. Once imprinted the software will function to the limits of the hardware (wetware I guess would be more correct) Damage done to the wetware will damage the operating limits of the software but when the wetware is terminated the whole program becomes available for download somewhere else.
I don't really believe this is the answer to the nature of the soul or anything but it does make an interesting thought experiment as an method for reincarnation to function. Kind of explains the incredible power of instinct in creatures like ants. Where do the instincts come from? Well they are just the part of the software that can be installed in such limited wetware.

Behemoth wrote:Not sure if this will do anything for you roid, But one of my friends has medically died (Heart stopped) for around three minutes before being brought back and he said he could still hear things and such before being revived.

I think it goes deeper than anything we can physically prove, And it's unfortunate because i'd love to say there is evidence pointing to what i believe is real but that apparently isn't going to happen.

Just because your body stops working doesn't mean your mind has. When your heart stops your brain has about 7 minutes of stored up energy, with permanent damage being done after something like 5 minutes, worsening until the energy is depleted, and functions in the brain cease. You can be revived in three minutes without a problem. Don't see why you wouldn't be able to hear during this time, it would probably be a little fuzzy.

So you men when tony montana aka, scarface was talking to that bomber saying \"you stupid f--k look at you now\"
that he could still hear him when he was dead?

BADBOY IN DA OUSE F--K I'M BAAAAAAD!

Could be. During the French revolution, a doctor did an experiment with the help of a condemned prisoner.

The question was whether a person could still be conscious after their head was cut off. Before being taken to the guillotine, the doctor asked the prisoner to blink his eyes as many times as he could for as long as he could after his head had been severed.

After the execution was carried out, the doctor picked up the head of the prisoner and counted the eyes blinking for about 20 seconds before the brain went unconscious.

All I can say is eeeeeeuuuuuu!

that prisoner who was beheaded was actaully the doctor himself! what a science hero.

If we look at existance as being not just based off of an equation, but actually having an equation as its source (instead of energy as nuclear physics tells us), then we will also see the spacelessness of existance. Let us assume existance is timeless as well, for the purpose of appeasing the religious community. In this case, everything has already happened, is happening, and will happen at the same time. Think Matrix oracle. Anyway, the only thing that makes this timelessness seem like time is choice and the misunderstanding thereof. We have choice, and are making choices in a timeless sense. This making of choices removes the timeless element (puts up the illusion of time) because a mystery is not revealed until a choice is made, the mystery of what is the choice we chose and why we choose it. This mystery is better understood as being resolved through understanding in a timeless sense. Note this choice is not the same as forced choice which is brought on by the mind. Beings that have a body and a mind, but no soul, experience timelessness. They see no time nor understand it, for they have everything revealed and live in harmony with everything. They cannot say \"I am\" and understand what it means. By being able to say \"I am,\" humans understand their source of being, that of choice from which conciousness evolves. That source is the soul and is our \"image and likeness\" of God. Now let us go back to this timeless theory. How do we prove the world is timeless?
1. Everything without choice is only going to act a certain way and therefore has fully predictable attributes.
2. We live in this world without choice if we assume the stars, the planets, and all matter cannot choose as they are. Our bodies do not make choices. Even the electrical signals in our brains do not make choices as much as a computer cannot make choices. Some foreign element governs these electrical signals. Only this foreign element (soul) can choose.

Granted, I can see how people can say there is no such thing as the soul, no such thing as choice. Only a small fraction of the world's population actually are aware of choice (an understanding thereof). If you put 1000 humans in a repeating virtual simulation in which their bodies and minds are reset to a set stage for 1000 trials, there might be one case in which one choses 2 different results (which shows the presense of a foreign nature, that of what we call the soul).

If you want to know where the soul is in the body, first think about this: the body is an illusion created by the soul (since it is part of the physical world) just as the meaning of this world (chairs are chairs, sun is our sun, rocks are rocks) is created by the mind (old Greek idea of soul) as it relates light (high/low frequency) and the shape of that light (location of different photons) to meaning (chair, sun, rock).

Well, that was interesting, Prime Where'd you get that information?

If you want to know where the soul is in the body, first think about this: the body is an illusion created by the soul (since it is part of the physical world) just as the meaning of this world (chairs are chairs, sun is our sun, rocks are rocks) is created by the mind (old Greek idea of soul) as it relates light (high/low frequency) and the shape of that light (location of different photons) to meaning (chair, sun, rock).

I like that. This whole perspective is interesting. No time without choice, choice creates being and time. In the Buddhist cycle you start with Ignorance move through Conciousness, Desire, Grasping to Birth, Life and Death. Then restart the cycle if you have not conquered Ignorance. Before you become Concious of the material world it does not have material existence.
Makes for interesting thinking.

roid wrote:that prisoner who was beheaded was actually the doctor himself! what a science hero.

You're right roid, I got them switched.

If choice creates time, why is it circular and repetitive? Why can't time flow like a river, never ending, with choice causing either a change in direction or even a new branch in the flow of life?

Outside influences beyond our control would also have an impact in the scheme of things as well, not just the choices we make.

There is also entropy, the tendency of things to become disordered with time. Does that have an effect?

In physics time is one of the properties of matter whose attributes are determined in the microseconds after all matter is plasma in the moment of creation/destruction that is the Big Bang. Time in this universe is perceived as linear because that is the way the parts settled. It might just as easily settled as circular or all time occurring at once. It just happened that we got linear time. In the same way choice can be seen as the agent that created linear time if you look at creation differently.

Ford Prefect wrote:In physics time is one of the properties of matter whose attributes are determined in the microseconds after all matter is plasma in the moment of creation/destruction that is the Big Bang. Time in this universe is perceived as linear because that is the way the parts settled. It might just as easily settled as circular or all time occurring at once. It just happened that we got linear time. In the same way choice can be seen as the agent that created linear time if you look at creation differently.

Wait, what? I'm not entirely sure you know what you're talking about here... time isn't a property of matter at all.

Aggressor Prime wrote:...
Granted, I can see how people can say there is no such thing as the soul, no such thing as choice. Only a small fraction of the world's population actually are aware of choice (an understanding thereof). If you put 1000 humans in a repeating virtual simulation in which their bodies and minds are reset to a set stage for 1000 trials, there might be one case in which one choses 2 different results (which shows the presense of a foreign nature, that of what we call the soul).
...

This paragraph was the only part of that that made sense to me.

In the matrix, Neo was part of the human program. The program that every time it was run - eventually lead to the birth of "the one". This time around it was Neo.
In this respect i found it quite similar to the story in "Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" - in that EARTH was a giant biological computer running a program, every thing on that planet (including every human) was a part of the program - evolution was part of the program, everything was.
The end of the program was imminent and an idea in the head of a little girl was the final answer. But this girl, just like Neo, was just a part of a program.

If Neo was one of the few who had a soul, and it gave him the ability to make real choices not based on input he had absorbed over his life experience (ie: the ability to make an entirely random choice). Then what would be the point of this? This would just make Neo a random number generator - we have programs that emulate this (ie: create seemingly random numbers) good enough that you can't tell the difference, it's nothing new.

As you said in the paragraph, i believe that every choice we make is based on past experience, or our biology (which can be predicted) - It's all nurture or nature, there is nothing else.
If someone were to make a real choice - as you put it. Of what use would this ability be? It would be, by definition, a choice made irrespective of ANY real input. It would be like me screaming "BANANAS!!" for no reason, why is this a holy thing?

It would be you asking me if i want to drive to the beach, and me answering by screaming out "SPANKED FUSION JUSTICE BANANA!!" for absolutely no reason, why is this a holy thing?

To make any desision, any choice, is to weigh up what you want. You must want something. You can even want, to not want. If you don't want anything, then you do not make a choice - you make NO CHOICE. You don't even "want" to make a choice (you don't want anything). You just walk away looking for something you do want to make a choice about. no?

roid wrote:To make any desision, any choice, is to weigh up what you want. You must want something. You can even want, to not want. If you don't want anything, then you do not make a choice - you make NO CHOICE. You don't even "want" to make a choice (you don't want anything). You just walk away looking for something you do want to make a choice about. no?

Ah, but there's the rub. Making "no choice" IS a choice. You are choosing NOT to make a choice, so you will then be following that decision and any consequences that follow.

EVERYTHING we do or don't do is some kind of choice, even choosing whether or not to act on something is a choice.

My point exactly tunnelcat. While we may not be aware of our ability to choose, we still hold that ability, for that ability allows us to recognize our existence. Only beings with choice live outside of this predetermined physical world and therefore can actually hold conciousness. Animals are not concious in the way humans are. They are merely an equation set in stone. As far as what is holy about making random remarks, most likely what you are saying would be done by nature. Although if it is done by choice, true choice, then it shows an act that cannot be predicted. This act finds its source not in the physical world and therefore must come from the spiritual world, even if such an act as this is meaningless. Of course, I doubt that would be the kind of activity we utilize from the spiritual world. The most obvious would be self sacrifice without any benefit and realization of no benefit, not even the benefit of an afterlife. A perfect connection to purpose as I would say.

tunnelcat wrote:

roid wrote:To make any desision, any choice, is to weigh up what you want. You must want something. You can even want, to not want. If you don't want anything, then you do not make a choice - you make NO CHOICE. You don't even "want" to make a choice (you don't want anything). You just walk away looking for something you do want to make a choice about. no?

Ah, but there's the rub. Making "no choice" IS a choice. You are choosing NOT to make a choice, so you will then be following that decision and any consequences that follow.

EVERYTHING we do or don't do is some kind of choice, even choosing whether or not to act on something is a choice.

yup.

I believe Rush used that in one of their songs back in 1980.

Aggressor Prime wrote:My point exactly tunnelcat. While we may not be aware of our ability to choose, we still hold that ability, for that ability allows us to recognize our existence. Only beings with choice live outside of this predetermined physical world and therefore can actually hold conciousness. Animals are not concious in the way humans are. They are merely an equation set in stone. As far as what is holy about making random remarks, most likely what you are saying would be done by nature. Although if it is done by choice, true choice, then it shows an act that cannot be predicted. This act finds its source not in the physical world and therefore must come from the spiritual world, even if such an act as this is meaningless. Of course, I doubt that would be the kind of activity we utilize from the spiritual world. The most obvious would be self sacrifice without any benefit and realization of no benefit, not even the benefit of an afterlife. A perfect connection to purpose as I would say.

what i'm asking then is what is choice? is it just somethign that can't be predicted in the physical world?

i don't get it; emotions, feelings and thoughts are all physical things - they are influenced by physical things, physical events, social interaction. If you want to do something, it is because of a mixture of biological predisposition and your upbringing and experience. In otherwords a mixture of Nature and Nurture.
What i was saying earlier was that a choice that was purely uneffected by the physical world would be completly random and useless. If you are effected by any emotion, or even preconceptions of right and wrong - then it's tainted by the physical world and is no longer a "pure spiritual choice". What this is essentially saying is that the more "spiritually pure" a choice is the more "stupid" that choice will be, the 2 go together. As any choice is based less and less on real world influences - the more useless that decision will be. And vice-versa: The more data you have to base a choice on - the smarter your decision will be.



as for self-sacrifice: even animals are altruistic, look at those friendly bonobo apes. Altruism seems to be a part of social species. There is nothing uniquely human about it.

If you perform an act of noble self-sacrifice, you have already been influenced by notions of "worth". Afterall - you know that it is a sacrifice - that implies you know the worth of it.

If someone performs an act of self-sacrifice, it would be because they know the worth (nobility) and implications of their act - they have likely been exposed to it before in cultural storys or witnessed it themselves. - Also because of innate altruistic behavior that is coded into our psychological makeup in our genes, as we are a social species.
- They have then been exposed to a certain turn of events - a form of education, preening, moulding that leads to someone psychologicaly integrating the goal of being a noble person.

Where's the magic?
Isn't a starving dog sitting becide it's dead master self-sacrificing too? Yet a dog is an "animal".

I would suggest that we - just like that dog - are just as much an equation set in stone (as much as an ever changing pattern of neurons can ever be "set" anyway).

Anything that happens. Any choice anyone could ever make, even fictional (got a movie in mind?) - I will suggest specific real (or fictional) world physical influences. Try me


It sounds like a "god of the gaps" philosophy, but caused more by ignorance. Coz where you see gaps (eg: self-sacrifice?), i think i have answers filling those gaps (eg: biological altruism, sociology, cultural influence & developmental psychology!).

here's a good rule of thumb:
I also believe that God exists. It doesn't make sense that everything that exists could come into being just by random particle interactions.

I also believe that God exists. It doesn't make sense that everything that exists could come into being just by random particle interactions.

You see this is where personal opinion trumps facts. I feel exactly the opposite. That only random particle interaction properly explains our universe. The existence of god or gods lacks any evidence at all but we have lots of evidence of the power of random interactions.
Each to his/her own.

roid wrote:

Aggressor Prime wrote:My point exactly tunnelcat. While we may not be aware of our ability to choose, we still hold that ability, for that ability allows us to recognize our existence. Only beings with choice live outside of this predetermined physical world and therefore can actually hold conciousness. Animals are not concious in the way humans are. They are merely an equation set in stone. As far as what is holy about making random remarks, most likely what you are saying would be done by nature. Although if it is done by choice, true choice, then it shows an act that cannot be predicted. This act finds its source not in the physical world and therefore must come from the spiritual world, even if such an act as this is meaningless. Of course, I doubt that would be the kind of activity we utilize from the spiritual world. The most obvious would be self sacrifice without any benefit and realization of no benefit, not even the benefit of an afterlife. A perfect connection to purpose as I would say.

what i'm asking then is what is choice? is it just somethign that can't be predicted in the physical world?

i don't get it; emotions, feelings and thoughts are all physical things - they are influenced by physical things, physical events, social interaction. If you want to do something, it is because of a mixture of biological predisposition and your upbringing and experience. In otherwords a mixture of Nature and Nurture.
What i was saying earlier was that a choice that was purely uneffected by the physical world would be completly random and useless. If you are effected by any emotion, or even preconceptions of right and wrong - then it's tainted by the physical world and is no longer a "pure spiritual choice". What this is essentially saying is that the more "spiritually pure" a choice is the more "stupid" that choice will be, the 2 go together. As any choice is based less and less on real world influences - the more useless that decision will be. And vice-versa: The more data you have to base a choice on - the smarter your decision will be.



as for self-sacrifice: even animals are altruistic, look at those friendly bonobo apes. Altruism seems to be a part of social species. There is nothing uniquely human about it.

If you perform an act of noble self-sacrifice, you have already been influenced by notions of "worth". Afterall - you know that it is a sacrifice - that implies you know the worth of it.

If someone performs an act of self-sacrifice, it would be because they know the worth (nobility) and implications of their act - they have likely been exposed to it before in cultural storys or witnessed it themselves. - Also because of innate altruistic behavior that is coded into our psychological makeup in our genes, as we are a social species.
- They have then been exposed to a certain turn of events - a form of education, preening, moulding that leads to someone psychologicaly integrating the goal of being a noble person.

Where's the magic?
Isn't a starving dog sitting becide it's dead master self-sacrificing too? Yet a dog is an "animal".

I would suggest that we - just like that dog - are just as much an equation set in stone (as much as an ever changing pattern of neurons can ever be "set" anyway).

Anything that happens. Any choice anyone could ever make, even fictional (got a movie in mind?) - I will suggest specific real (or fictional) world physical influences. Try me


It sounds like a "god of the gaps" philosophy, but caused more by ignorance. Coz where you see gaps (eg: self-sacrifice?), i think i have answers filling those gaps (eg: biological altruism, sociology, cultural influence & developmental psychology!).

I'm not saying we make choices without regard to the physical world. What I'm saying is choice finds its origin not in the physical world, and therefore has the ability to make decisions outside of physical boundaries. For example, someone who is raped, burned, and just totally rejected by his parents and everyone else he knows while growing up has the ability to turn out to be a very normal and caring guy, even if physically that would seem impossible.

Also, let me apply the test of the soul upon you. Are you aware of your own existence? Do you think animals are aware of their own existence? Do you think computers, devices that think on the same level as animals, are aware of their own existence? Can you confidently say "I am" or "I exist" without any doubt in your mind, as if you know that you have knowledge of your existence, existence being the basic statement of "I am" or "I exist" and not even going into I am human or I have a body or I am a creature of God or god or gods or whatever you believe or do not believe in?

Neo wrote:here's a good rule of thumb:

Code: Select all

human = spirit + soul + body

I also believe that God exists. It doesn't make sense that everything that exists could come into being just by random particle interactions.

I think we are using the modern concept of the soul, not the Socrates concept. Therefore, your spirit would be today's soul and your soul would be today's mind.

Aggressor Prime wrote:I'm not saying we make choices without regard to the physical world. What I'm saying is choice finds its origin not in the physical world, and therefore has the ability to make decisions outside of physical boundaries. For example, someone who is raped, burned, and just totally rejected by his parents and everyone else he knows while growing up has the ability to turn out to be a very normal and caring guy, even if physically that would seem impossible.

I'd say the person's empathy pushed him to want to protect others from the same fate he had (after he had discovered other people existed who did NOT have his same painful upbringing). Be more specific and i'll be able to tell you more. I would agree it would seem to be impossible for a person to turn out "very normal" with this sort of upbringing - if he is truly rejected by absolutely EVERYONE. It could perchance be possible to find an inner source of a coping mechanism inside the psyche - as a form of psychosis perhaps. But this would disqualify from the "very normal" category.
Give me more info.

Aggressor Prime wrote:Also, let me apply the test of the soul upon you. Are you aware of your own existence? Do you think animals are aware of their own existence? Do you think computers, devices that think on the same level as animals, are aware of their own existence? Can you confidently say "I am" or "I exist" without any doubt in your mind, as if you know that you have knowledge of your existence, existence being the basic statement of "I am" or "I exist" and not even going into I am human or I have a body or I am a creature of God or god or gods or whatever you believe or do not believe in?

I'm not sure how you're going to gauge anything from this, here goes.

- Are you aware of your own existence? yes
- Do you think animals are aware of their own existence? Unsure. I'd guess yes, in some form. Higher intelligence animals would be more aware. They all have innate self-preservation so something in them is striving to be alive and not dead - implying an understanding of the difference. A want of one, and do-not-want of the other. This might be the simplest incarnation of an "awareness of existance" i can think of - self-preservation.
- Do you think computers, devices that think on the same level as animals, are aware of their own existence? No, as far as i know they completely lack egos. I'm not sure we actually have a device that thinks on the same level of animals yet - do you have a source for this statement? But building on what i said above, if a computer is programmed with a form of self-preservation, then perhaps they could be said to be aware of their existance, i'm not sure.
- Can you confidently say "I am" or "I exist" without any doubt in your mind, as if you know that you have knowledge of your existence, existence being the basic statement of "I am" or "I exist" and not even going into I am human or I have a body or I am a creature of God or god or gods or whatever you believe or do not believe in?
No i cannot confidently say with no doubt in my mind, that i exist. I understand that i might not exist at all, nor the world around me. This pains my ego to consider, but i understand it is a true possability . ie: if some paradox causes the destruction of our unviverse and all time and space - i will not only cease to exist as in "die" - but will have never existed throughout all of time.

what's the prognosis? do i have a soul according to your religion? (is this an original religion btw? or is this based on a more common teaching i can look up?)