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.

No, it's not and you need to show the science and scientific effort that even tried to do that. Denying qualia is no different than denying God or angels, so keep an eye out for those halos.

The evidence is life. Have you experienced life? I suppose you are now going to tell everyone what is life?

John Harris The evidence is life. Have you experienced life? I suppose you are now going to tell everyone what is life?

Life is evidence of life, not the soul. Your reasoning is as bizarre as your worldview. And I've experienced life, but you surely haven't . You've reduced it to a supernatural concept.

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.

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

No, the thing I call "life" is life. What people like you call the soul or prana or Qi or Christ's spirit or the boogeyman are different things entirely.

Please run along and consult the term "strawman".

Science does not explain, it describes. Since there is no such thing as a soul there is nothing to describe here. It's just a feeble minded attempt to produce a theory to avoid death.

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:

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?

Please run along and consult the term "strawman". — charleton

Strawman? It is my position, that there is such a thing as the soul, which is being attacked. Are you starting to realize that Johnny H is projecting his own understanding of "soul", (a misunderstanding I might add) onto my claims, and attacking it? Johnny H clearly demonstrated that misunderstanding when it was insisted that we should be able to find the soul as a physical object if it really exists. To think of the soul, or represent the soul, as being a physical object is most obviously a straw man attack.

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?.

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:

I am Thanatos Sand. I forgot my password and I thought I had made that clear to everyone. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear to you.

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?

What you miss about that definition, and Comtes, of positivism, is it doesn't just reject non-scientific methods for determining the scientific existence of something, which is what I was doing. It also rejects the use of Humanities for everything, which my stance wasn't doing. As a literature teacher/scholar myself, I certainly don't apply scientific methods to studying the works of Faulkner, James, and Melville, nor do I, or did my position, reject all philosophical activity.

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.

Sure it hasn't been demonstrated. What you referred to was theorizing, not demonstrating. Using your faulty logic, many people have demonstrated God, so you better head to Church..or a synagogue.

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?.

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.

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 and the experience of inner life. Other than calling it an illusion, science has zero to say on this matter so I'll look elsewhere for ideas such as in philosophy and the arts.

↪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.

Except scientific verification is still required for consensual agreement on existence of entities. Again, using your weak standards, people can assert God, angels, and Santa Claus exist...and Christ walks among us. I had no idea you were so inclined.

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.

You can pursue whatever you want in your life, and I support that. And, as I said, you can personally believe angels and the soul exist. However, your personal predilections are not enough if you want to assert the existence of those entities to others.

Yes but you can blather on and on about your neolithic myths as much as you want. You have no evidence and present a theory that does no work.
You might as well be positing the existence of dragons.

The same goes for you too. If you have a theory of soul then present it. You will get nowhere with childish strawman arguments.
You have all your work to do , to make your neolithic myth look reasonable. 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.

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.

No evidence? I have life and I have qualia (my inner experience if life) and I have memory and I have innate, inborn skills and traits. Now, given that the Laws of Nature (God) are forcing me to pursue this exploration in my life, exactly what is the purpose of the Laws of Nature (your own personal God) in trying to convince me otherwise. Why don't you ruminate over your own preposterous philosophy?

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.

Since we became an enlightened, scientific society. Otherwise people with your standard could point to a rock and say "look, there's a soul," or point to the Sun and say "look at those souls make that circle shine." Those aren't my restrictions; they're the standards of an enlightened, scientifically-oriented society like ours....thank god.

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

Of course you're imposing your dogma on others, and other people do that. You're here exclaiming "the soul is life, the soul is life." That's your imposed dogma.

I think you are shooting you self in the foot with your parenthesis; and your evidence is evidence of the things you mention, nothing suggesting a soul at all.

Just pointing out how silly the dogma of Natural Laws and Illusions may be, which is just about all that science has to offer. As for myself, I am discarding such a silly metaphysics and instead exploring the nature and persistence of the inner experience of life that Bergson refers to as Memory.

I think most people who agree with materialism/monism are property dualists in that they see consciousness, the personality, the soul ect as emerging from the underlying brain processes. There are various issues with this view highlighted by Kim relating to the causal closure of the physical.

That's all fine, but that is not "soul".

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.

But, in that regard, he's merely expressing a common popular belief.

Thanatos is much too far-gone to talk to, but I just wanted to make this comment.

Michael Ossipoff

It is for me. Life with persistent memory. There is evidence of this.

You may have noticed that Thanatos imagines himself to be the Defender-Of-Science.

You may have noticed that Michael Ossipoof is making lame personal attacks, which makes him a troll.

...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.

I never did either of these things, and Ossipoff the troll didn't show I did.

Thanatos is much too far-gone to talk to, but I just wanted to make this comment.

And here Ossipoff is both hilariously projecting and showing he is, again, the sad troll making erroneous personal attacks.

The soul? Do I believe in it? No. Do away with the concept, I say. It's a word that can be dispensed with, along with god, afterlife, angels, and the rest. Don't waste your time.

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. Theorizing is to produce a hypotheses. The usefulness of the theory still needs to be demonstrated in order to justify the theory. 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.

Using your faulty logic, many people have demonstrated God, so you better head to Church..or a synagogue. — John Harris

Yes, that is correct, many people have demonstrated the need to assume the existence of God. Some people accept these demonstrations, other people do not. I would say with a fair degree of certainty, that the majority of people who reject the demonstrations do so without even taking the time to understand them. This is what you do. It is evident that it is what you do because you refer to it as theorizing rather than as demonstrating. If you had taken time to understand the demonstrations you would be referring to them as demonstrations, and addressing the logic of the demonstrations rather than misrepresenting the demonstrations as theorizing.

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

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.

So I wasn't talking about how you could know that the Mississippi River is the Mississippi River, that would be kind of pointless. I was asking how, if you came across a body of water, you would know whether or not it is the Mississippi River. I know my parents as my parents because I've known them all my life, and I recognize them when I encounter them, so this is an unrelated example. The question is, when you find a body of water which you've never seen before, and therefore do not recognize, how would you know that it is the Mississippi River except through the use of some theory?

Likewise, if you came across something which is a soul, how would you recognize it as a soul without reference to some theory? If you refuse to consult that theory you would never apprehend it as a soul, just like you wouldn't apprehend the body of water as the Mississippi River if you refuse to consult the theory.

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.

The same goes for you too. If you have a theory of soul then present it. — charleton

Understanding the existence of the soul requires a lot of study, and all I'm trying to do is stress this point to those who offhandedly dismiss the concept of soul without putting in the required effort to understand it. If I presented a "theory of soul" right here in this thread, it would require a lot of effort, and be so long that very few if any would read it, therefore wasted effort. I believe you would dismiss it without even trying to understand it because it would require numerous demonstrations of the need to assume the existence of the soul, to get that point across, followed by theory as to what exactly the soul is. If you are really interested you could read some of the material I referenced earlier in the thread. Plato offers the demonstrations of the need to assume the existence of the soul, and Aristotle offers theory of exactly what the soul is. There is a vast amount of philosophical material on this subject if you take the time to read it. I can't do your reading for you.

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

You are telling me to consult my explanations of Johnny's straw man argument, to inform myself of what a straw man argument is, if I do not know? How could I learn from my own descriptions of what that is, if I didn't already know?

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.

Then you've never seen an actual physical demonstration of reality, as in you've never seen a car drive or plane fly. Those are physical demonstrations showing the calculations and machinery used could make something fly. You've clearly never seen someone have illness either. As the symptoms of those illnesses are used to diagnose those illnesses. Those are physical, scientific demonstrations far above logical demonstrations that can be used to theorize, but not show, God or a soul exists.

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.

No he didn't. The theorized what he thought the soul was. Nobody saw the soul or detected it in any way through his theory. And as someone who graduated from a Jesuit Honors program in college, I assure you I am far more familiar with Plato's demonstrations than you. What is your education anyway?

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.

I answered that question. And I asked you, if you encountered your parents, how would you know they were your parents without referring to theory. You still haven't been able to answer that, showing the fallacy of your original question.

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.

Again you show you're an angry, hostile person who cant' make an argument without making personal attacks. And my position is the rational one; the only selfish bias is yours. And disagreement on method isn't consensual agreement. What we do have in this world is the educated (are you?) understanding that we do not accept something exists until it has been scientifically demonstrated. You're free to believe in angels and the Easter Bunny, and your parents are your parents, but you can't impose that on the consensual agreement you exclude yourself from.

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

I like it too.

This claim is founded on an unsupported assumption; that everything that is "natural" is capable of being "found". — Janus

Good point, though I don't think it's an unsupported assumption, however supported assumptions don't make them absolute. Undoubtedly some natural things haven't been found or defined yet, but could be capable of being.

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

Hmm.. why would it exist if I think it doesn't matter? If it dies it existed in the first place, right? But yes, it matters to me.

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

Thanks for the suggestion. I am enjoying your contribution to the discussion. Undercover as what?

Everything in your experience is consistent with what an animal would be expected to experience. — Michael Ossipoff

I am having a hard time understanding how our experience of consciousness as an animal removes the possibility of a soul or how 'if then' factors interracting with each other disqualify the possibility. You have given me a lot to digest though and perhaps I need to read more in depth into these terms you've provided me with or if you'd like to expand on them, go for it.

If we were born to experience the same world without a soul like influence yet individualized, then how did humanity become individuals to begin with? how did culture and artificiality arise... I'm sure you've addressed this somewhere in there but it is hard for me to connect the dots considering I don't have the same knowledge you do.

That's a great last name, by the way.

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

Cool idea, very intriguing.

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

I lumped personality with soul because I wanted to see if people thought the soul (if believing it exists) was our driving force behind our actions and our disposition and then somehow culture and environment influenced and changed it over time. It isn't an idea I'm attached at the hip to but something I've pondered.

So just remember that, whatever comes next. — Wayfarer

Sounds ominous. I'll keep it in mind.

Define soul. — Thorongil

That light glowing thing that makes us tick.. oh, I don't know. Perhaps an entity or matter separate from body but obviously in control of it, something that gives us life.

That said,life is still wondrous and should be celebrated. Maybe even all the more so! — Brian

A refreshing attitude and half the time I am on your side of the argument.

What has ruled out the existence of souls? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Good question.
And fair point.


On a sidenote: Does anyone know if there are ways to delete messages from discussions?