CasKev Science is unable to detect or measure any qualia - the inner experience of life. Should we deny that we can distinguish qualia and our whole inner, subjective experience of life? I guess some might, banishing all that is interesting about life into the corn fields of illusion.
John Harris The evidence is life. Have you experienced life? I suppose you are now going to tell everyone what is life?
John Harris Will now you are beginning to get it. That thing you call life, some people call the soul, others may call it Prana, Qi, or Elan Vital.Now, if you want to give your expert scientific explanation of life, be my guest. — Rich
You clearly don't know either, since you can't explain in any way how my relying on scientific standards is positivism or scientism, and their not, particularly since I don't reject the humanities at all in my argument. — John Harris
Scientists have done a pretty good job explaining matter and energy and explaining how that's all the universe is made of, with dark and anti- matter being material forms. — Thanatos Sand
a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism.
Please run along and consult the term "strawman". — charleton
I didn't say "demonstrated to me;" I correctly said it hasn't been demonstrated, period, and it hasn't. — John Harris
Sorry, according to your flawed logic, you don't know your parents are your parents. — John Harris
You clearly don't know either, since you can't explain in any way how my relying on scientific standards is positivism or scientism, and their not, particularly since I don't reject the humanities at all in my argument.
— John Harris
Don't recall having said anything to you, John Harris. What I was commenting on was this:
Don't recall having said anything to you, John Harris. What I was commenting on was this:
Scientists have done a pretty good job explaining matter and energy and explaining how that's all the universe is made of, with dark and anti- matter being material forms.
— Thanatos Sand
Which is pretty darned close to saying 'all that can be known, can be known by means of science'; if not positivism, then certainly scientism, although they're pretty close.
The dictionary definition of positivism:
a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism.
Which is pretty well exactly what Thanatos Sand, and numerous others, argue on this forum.
And the fact that you can conclude that I have a poor knowledge of Comte and of positivism on the basis of a single sentence says something, doesn't it?
I didn't say "demonstrated to me;" I correctly said it hasn't been demonstrated, period, and it hasn't.
— John Harris
Sure it has been demonstrated. Didn't I refer to Plato's demonstrations earlier in the thread. As I said, the fact that you haven't paid any attention to these demonstrations does not mean that the demonstrations have not been made. It's a very self-centered world in which you live in.
Sorry, according to your flawed logic, you don't know your parents are your parents.
— John Harris
Why would you say this? We haven't even discussed what is meant by the word "know". It appears like you are using it in a way completely different from how I would use it, and projecting this onto me. You seem very confused and getting more and more so Should I try not to use any more big words, like "soul", so that you can stay abreast of the conversation?.
↪John Harris Science measures. The world doesn't march to what science may or may not be able to measure. We already know that science cannot simultaneously define position and momentum and it certainly can't measure qualia. Science it's always changing and it has its obvious limitations.
I am pursuing the nature and meaning in my life. Other than calling it an illusion, science has zero to say on the matter so I'll look elsewhere for ideas such as in philosophy and the arts.
Since when? It is required for conversation with you. You cannot impose your own, freely chosen restrictions on thought on others. Thankfully, I've left the school system which is basically all that it tries to do.Except scientific verification is still required for consensual agreement on existence of entities. — John Harris
Except scientific verification is still required for consensual agreement on existence of entities.
— John Harris
Since when? It is required for conversation with you. You cannot impose your own, freely chosen restrictions on thought on others. Thankfully, I've left the school system which is basically all that it tries to do.
I don't believe in the supernatural Laws of Nature that is guiding me and forcing me to do things in life. I also don't impose my dogma on others. I am a person who is exploring the inner experience of life. Unfortunately, your Laws of Nature doesn't permit you to do so. So sorry
You may have noticed that Thanatos imagines himself to be the Defender-Of-Science.
...wanting to apply science outside of its legitimate range of applicability--the workings of this physical world and the interactions of its parts.
...trying to make science into a metaphysics, or even a religion.
Thanatos is much too far-gone to talk to, but I just wanted to make this comment.
Sure it hasn't been demonstrated. What you referred to was theorizing, not demonstrating. — John Harris
Using your faulty logic, many people have demonstrated God, so you better head to Church..or a synagogue. — John Harris
I said it because you said I couldn't know the existence of the Mississipi river, which is as physically real as your parents, and as "names" as a river as your parents are named your "parents". So, If I can't know the Mississipi River is the Mississipi River, you can't know your parents are your parents, and you don't know they are for a fact. So, I projected nothing, and the only confused one is you, as I clearly used your own faulty logic against you. — John Harris
Except scientific verification is still required for consensual agreement on existence of entities. — John Harris
The same goes for you too. If you have a theory of soul then present it. — charleton
Wasting time using strawman arguments is only going to make you look like you are floundering.
If you do not know what one is, then please consult your comments to me above. — charleton
Sure it hasn't been demonstrated. What you referred to was theorizing, not demonstrating.
— John Harris
I don't know of any form of demonstration other than a logical demonstration, though we often use physical objects as props. This is what is commonly referred to as justification.
What Plato did was demonstrate why we needed to assume the existence of the soul. It seems quite clear that you are not familiar with these demonstrations, so you are offhandedly dismissing them as theorizing.
I didn't say that you couldn't know the existence of the Mississippi River. I asked, if you encountered a river, how would you know that it is the Mississippi River without referring to theory. You replied that you'd refer to science (theory), or else appeal to authority.
Except scientific verification is still required for consensual agreement on existence of entities.
— John Harris
Again, you demonstrate your selfish bias. For you perhaps, scientific verification is necessary, but this is not necessary for many people, and that is demonstrated by religion. So we clearly have consensual agreement on the existence of entities without scientific verification. The fact that you exclude yourself from that consensual agreement in no way negates it. It just excludes you from it.
I like it too.I like the idea of the soul as an animating force, that which makes something come alive. Loosely, a work of art can have soul, a good meal with friends, music, my dog Sidney, a culture all can have soul as an animating force. — Cavacava
This claim is founded on an unsupported assumption; that everything that is "natural" is capable of being "found". — Janus
Does it matter to you if this soul, you ask about, dies?
If no, then it exists.
If yes, then I don't know. — TheMadFool
You should read some Plato. There is very much information there concerning the nature of the soul, and why it is necessary to assume that we have a soul. — Metaphysician Undercover
Everything in your experience is consistent with what an animal would be expected to experience. — Michael Ossipoff
4) Memory persists in the fabric of the universe. Evidence of this would be inherited traits, instincts, innate skills, and unexplainable skills (child prodigies, idiot savants, etc.).
It is this persistence if memory that we might call a soul. — Rich
One question I would have is about your use of 'personality', a something which to me has the same sort of existence as 'soul': I hear others speak of it, it seems to make sense to say it sometimes, but I wouldn't like to say it 'exists'. Where does someone's 'personality' reside? — mcdoodle
So just remember that, whatever comes next. — Wayfarer
Define soul. — Thorongil
That said,life is still wondrous and should be celebrated. Maybe even all the more so! — Brian
What has ruled out the existence of souls? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.