Yes, it is indeed the same word. The scare quotes indicate that the same word is being used in two different senses, of which one is perverse or confusing. So to say that a "leg" is not a leg is to say that there are two senses in which the word is being used: one sensibly and correctly and the other equivocally and strangely. Same with "correspondence" and correspondence.

I know what scare quotes do. That doesn't mean that "correspondence" and correspondence are any different in semantics in their expressions themselves. They need further elaboration for that. But feel free to show how they're different without elaborating beyond the expressions themselves. You can't.

Perhaps this would be better illustrated through an example:
Suppose this is a matter of euthanasia. The patient may explicitly consent to it because they're in horrible pain, but does this violate their rights in any way?
If not, would we be violating their rights if they didn't consent (they wanted to remain alive, but they're still in pain)? If so, which rights?

What rights are you talking about? If it's in a state with legal euthanasia, no legal rights are involved. There is no clear consensus on fundamental human rights.

Then you need to realize no theory of evolution proves or even substantially supports the theory of solutions being passed down genetically.

You said the solutions were passed down genetically. I said they weren't. You still have failed to show they are. And camouflage is neither a solution for many things nor a perfect solution for one. So, my argument there is correct, too. Try to address the issue at hand.
— Thanatos Sand
The issue at hand is that I seem to be arguing with one of those holdouts that simply won't accept the theory of evolution by natural selection and the field of genetics/heredity. I'm done arguing with idiots.

The only one arguing with idiots in this exchange has been me, and you've proven that. Nothing in the theory of evolution by natural selection and the field of genetics/heredity supports your outlandish theory of solutions being passed down genetically. The issue at hand is I have been arguing with one who ridiculously believes they are.

Scare quotes don't change the fact you're still using the same word. Sorry.

It means you can call anything you like "correspondence" but that does not make it correspondence. I can call a dog's tail a "leg" if I like but the dog still only has four legs.

No, it does not mean that at all, since you've still used the word "correspondence.' And your example fails too since "dogs tail" and "leg" are different phrases; correspondence and "correspondence" are the same words and they're both being used.

If souls have bodies and their bodies have parts and cannot be a part of ourselves, what are they, how and why do they exist, and what are their connections to us? Using your definition, they sound like Angels or aliens.
— Thanatos Sand

Do you understand the notion of looking at things, and trying to figure out why a certain type of thing behaves the way it does, and coming to the conclusion that there is something underlying that thing which is not immediately evident to your senses, but must be there in order to account for how that thing behaves? We can give that underlying thing a name, an identity, while knowing very little about it, just that it must be there in order to account for the way that the things are behaving. Take gravity for example.

Do you understand there is no substantial evidence a soul exists, so you have to establish or at least substantially establish that it does before accounting for how it behaves? Do you understand trying to ascertain how it must behave before doing so is particularly illogical? Do you also understand Gravity is something that can be shown to exist in the natural world while souls are not? Do you realize you never actually addressed my statement above, but just responded with a question?

I completely agree with that advice...:)

You have too much faith in science.

No, I have completely appropriate and rational belief in science. You have too much unfounded faith in the fantastical world you see beyond it.

And Genetics, by the way, is science, so you're relying on science as well, just not as well as you should.

Also, this is a topic where knowledge is scarce. So, I think it's open to speculation.

It's not open to fantastical or erroneous speculation. It is a fact that our identities are made up of more than just our genes; our life experience and socio-cultural surroundings have a huge influence and part. And there is nothing in Genetics pointing to identities being passed down genetically; so to think otherwise is anti-scientific.

"

Their genes live in you. Their "identities," which are made up of far more than genetic material, do not.

No, solutions aren't passed down genetically. Not only are actual final solutions immensely rare, they are not passed down through our genes.
— Thanatos Sand
Is camouflage passed down? Is it not a solution to a problem? Of course there is no final solution, as the environment is dynamic.

You said the solutions were passed down genetically. I said they weren't. You still have failed to show they are. And camouflage is neither a solution for many things nor a perfect solution for one. So, my argument there is correct, too. Try to address the issue at hand.

No, we are more than the product of natural causes. We are also the products of ideologies that have no direct correspondent to natural causes. And I never said it wasn't natural; you incorrectly said I did. And either way, those causes and ideologies give us information our genes do not.
— Thanatos Sand

This is utter nonsense. Either we are a product of a natural process, or we aren't. God (if it exists) is just as natural as what it creates.

The only utter nonsense is your ridiculous response to my correct and logical post. The fact you only see things as natural or not shows a difficulty understanding the world and its complexities. .

Acutally they're not. Firstly, problems faced are not passed down genetically; knowledge can't be isolated or transferred that simply. And Punctuated Equilibrium would break down that connection anyway since we don't evolve in a progressive timeline.
— Thanatos Sand
No. Problems aren't passed down, but their solutions are.

No, solutions aren't passed down genetically. Not only are actual final solutions immensely rare, they are not passed down through our genes.

Secondly, much of our way we think is irrationally and rationally derived from our socio-cultural surroundings, of which the transfer cannot be isolated or traced.
— Thanatos Sand
The socio-cultural surroundings is basically our environment that we find ourselves in. A concrete jungle filled with thousands of other human beings is just another type of natural environment. We are products of natural causes, just like every other species. Other species have different social environments. To say that theirs is natural and ours isn't is to reject the basic tenet of evolution by natural selection - that we are natural animals that fill our own environmental niche.

No, we are more than the product of natural causes. We are also the products of ideologies that have no direct correspondent to natural causes. And I never said it wasn't natural; you incorrectly said I did. And either way, those causes and ideologies give us information our genes do not.

Looks like there's some reading comprehension issues.

Be well Sand. Come back when you actually know how to present an argument.

Yes there are reading comprehension issues, and they're all yours.

Be well, Creative, I well presented my argument; you need to learn how to actually present your own.

How about this Sand...

The term "we" is meaningful as a result of drawing correlations between the term itself, others, and oneself. The term "American" is meaningful as a result of drawing correlations between the term itself, the country, and a place of birth....

How about this, Creative, the term "We" clearly denotes more than the definition in this sentence, it points to a conceptualized people, the "Americans." And the term American does more than draw correlations since everyones' concept of what an American is and how many Americans there are are different. So, there is no common object or even the same concept for people to correlate to. So, your deconstruction fails.

[r

You've shown no such thing Sand. Gratuitous assertions won't do here.

Of course I have, Creative, and you haven't shown I haven't.

There's something to be said about our ability to become aware of that which is not existentially contingent upon our awareness of it.

Correspondence is one such thing. Thus, calling correspondence a concept would be equivalent to calling anything else that is not existentially contingent upon our awareness of it... a concept.

Correspondence is presupposed within all thought/belief, including but not limited to pre and/or non-linguistic. Correspondence is not "correspondence". The former is the relationship that the latter takes an account of. It doesn't require being taken an account of.

As to your first sentence: OK

As to your second paragraph, of course correspondence is a concept; there is no material existence of "correspondence" without human conception of it. And saying correspondence is not "correspondence" makes no sense whatsoever.

I know human thought goes beyond 'mere' correlations. Not all correlations are 'mere'. Most are quite complex...

And as I showed, human thought involves more than simple and complex correlations.

Sigh. Offer an example and I'll gladly deconstruct it for you. I've seen no definition which claims what you've stated...

I gave you an example with my sentence I gave you earlier. You didn't deconstruct it and you won't be able to do so now.

You're arguing against an opponent borne of your own imagination.



"For example, in the following sentence--"We Americans need to defeat the Nazis before they spread their evil they showed in the Holocaust and fully destroy freedom"--we see concepts expounding on and moving beyond mere objects. "We" are no longer just the objects in a group, they are defined by the concept of nationhood: not an object. The same goes with the ideological concepts of evil and freedom, which have no clear object correspondent; they are concepts that have moved beyond them. And we haven't even discussed the lingusistic dynamics giving all these words meaning beyond their object correspondents."

Again, moving beyond 'mere' objects isn't a problem for my position. Getting to very complex notions without those consisting in/of more simple one would be.

My quote above argues against your original statement and it shows exactly why your model is insufficient for human thought and human thought is more than correlations.

Profound thought is nothing more and nothing less than novel correlation. Conceptualization is often described in terms of a concept being the container, and it's content being everything ever thought/belief and/or attributed to the concept. Again, that starts simply and gains complexity.

That's what you incorrectly say. The definitions of profound and profundity assign much more to it than novel correlation, your personal but erroneous definition. Again, that goes beyond starting simply and gaining complexity.

I find myself wondering why you keep on saying 'mere correlation'.

I keep on saying "mere correlation" because human thought goes beyond mere correlations.

1. Contemplation means profound thought, and profound thought is always thought beyond mere correlation; it is drawing meaning from those correlations and moving into concepts.

Here you're affirming the consequent. You're assuming precisely what needs argued for. That said, I wholeheartedly agree that human thought/belief as we know it is far more complex than mere simple correlations. The ability for abstract thought and conceptualization is proof of that. However, it still boils down to mental correlations, no matter how you slice it.

No, I'm not. I'm working from the established definition. We do have to do that in these discussions. So, it goes beyond just mental correlations.

This is the point I tried to clarify with Banno. You cannot think of the soul as a part of yourself. Souls have bodies, and bodies have parts. So the soul cannot be a part of yourself.

If souls have bodies and their bodies have parts and cannot be a part of ourselves, what are they, how and why do they exist, and what are their connections to us? Using your definition, they sound like Angels or aliens.

The ways we think are a result of the environmental (natural and social) problems our ancestors faced and needed to solve. We haven't changed much since, which is part of the problems we have in the environment we find ourselves in now.

Acutally they're not. Firstly, problems faced are not passed down genetically; knowledge can't be isolated or transferred that simply. And Punctuated Equilibrium would break down that connection anyway since we don't evolve in a progressive timeline.

Secondly, much of our way we think is irrationally and rationally derived from our socio-cultural surroundings, of which the transfer cannot be isolated or traced.

The influences to which you refer occurred after the beginning of your current life, and aren't relevant to the origin, cause or reason for that life's initial occurrence.

Of course they are since they are a possible alternative to how one got to their current life. And you did talk about one's current life

General comment to topic:

Of course the determination of whether you believe that there is or might be reincarnation is a matter of asking yourself this: What is the origin, cause, or reason for your current life? Will that origin, cause or reason continue to obtain afterwards?

Michael Ossipoff

So, the only one who has provided us with a classic textbook example of a troll is you. So, I ask that you stop trolling me. I will not read or respond to any more of your posts on this thread.

No, a relevant dynamic to your proposed topic is not a different topic. But move on with your topic. I well-addressed it and will let my relevant statement stand.

Of course the determination of whether you believe that there is or might be reincarnation is a matter of asking yourself this: What is the origin, cause, or reason for your current life? Will that origin, cause or reason continue to obtain afterwards?

No, as you can see, you said "What is the origin, cause, or reason for your current life?" and I addressed that with a statement that bears on the topics questions.:

Its also a matter of asking yourself is the origin, cause, or reason for your current life something spiritual, or is it just the result of many physical & psychological phenomena that have occurred along the way. — Thanatos Sand

Of course the determination of whether you believe that there is or might be reincarnation is a matter of asking yourself this: What is the origin, cause, or reason for your current life? Will that origin, cause or reason continue to obtain afterwards?

Its also a matter of asking yourself is the origin, cause, or reason for your current life something spiritual, or is it just the result of many physical & psychological phenomena that have occurred along the way.

Christianity, particularly the Medieval theologians, has delved deeply into addressing the problem
— Thanatos Sand

Yes and what's there solution?

I'm sure you're aware you need to specify which Christians and/or which Medieval theologians.

Original sin? Hereditary sin doesn't make sense.

Actually, the model of original sin and even predestination makes sense when you consider some of us are born with a greater genetic disposition for anger or Depression or addiction and some of us are given a genetic disposition for well-adjustedness and congeniality, and we haven't even mentioned cultural coding.

Buddhist Karma quite easily explains evil as retribution for past bad deeds.

No, it offers that as an answer. It doesnt' substantially support that, or support it at all, with real-world evidence to bear that out.

But...there's a next life where good is rewarded and evil punished. Karma doesn't necessarily mean we have to reap our rewards or suffer punishment in this life.

You say that's the case, but you have no proof of it. And if people have no memory of what they did in the past, then their suffering is pointless as far as learning. And there's something disgusting about suggesting Holocaust victims deserve what they got because its "Karma" for past misdeeds and the Nazis good fortune is Karma for past good ones.

[quoteI was only comparing religions on the scales of coherence. In this case, Buddhism to Abrahamic religions. I don't know if God exists but Buddhism is a more coherent theory than, say, Christianity, so far as solving the problem of evil is the issue.][/quote]

You did say there's no omnibenevolent God, and you don't know that. And Buddhism isn't a more coherent theory than Christianity as far as solving the problem of evil; you just say it is. Christianity, particularly the Medieval theologians, has delved deeply into addressing the problem. A religion thinking it can solve the problem is just hubris.

Yes, but everyone is getting their Karmic reward/punishment. Every person in your life, even the tiny speck of dust that enters your eye, is a Karmic messenger, there to give you happiness or pain based on your past deeds.

Karma is a justice system where everyone is both the criminal and the judge, reward/punishment being handed out in complex BUT perfect ways.

Wrong. Firstly, you have no proof of this. Secondly, if bad people are getting good fortune and good people are getting bad fortune, than your justice system isn't a justice system at all. The Holocaust and Nazis getting away with it shows that. So do plane crashes where everybody who deserve different Karmic results are getting the exact same one.

Peace out back to you; I appreciate the clarification....:)

What I said was in perfect English.

Help me out, then. Do you want to discuss the soul or do you want to discuss it's history? And if yes to the latter, do you think anyone on this site could adequately and exhaustively do so?

Wouldn't you? If you think Dante has the monopoly on defining the soul, you have severely limited your education.

My statement wasn't about, nor addressing, how people understood the soul; it was about what would be needed for the soul to exist. I'm not surprised you missed that...:)

No, the only bs comment is yours, as you are literally trying and failing to disprove mine through a fictional story. Hilarious.

Yes, and that's a work of fiction.

WaPo also committed fake news throughout the 2016 election when they made continual hit pieces on Bernie Sanders, including a false claim that his followers threw chairs at the Nevada convention, to help their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton. And we're not even going to mention when WaPo continually pushed the false story of WMDs and avidly supported the Iraq War for years.

Thank you for proving my point. Editors notes are not full retractions and are rarely ever seen since they are placed after most people have and will read the articles.

And a newspaper is fake news when it creates its own mistakes as WaPo did with the ProporNot story or with the Vermont story when they did not come close to doing the due diligence because they've been in a frenzy to get Russia conspiracy theory stories out. That's fake news too.

No offense taken, but those aren't my words either. Here they are; I welcome you're addressing them if you wish.:

Souls by their nature would act outside of space/time since the rules of space/time clearly don't apply to them. They neither move through time, nor exist in space, like the rest of matter. So, either a parallel universe with different rules or a supernatural dimension would be needed. Parsimony would demand the rejection of the theory of souls since neither scientific observation nor the rules of the universe bear them out; they are hardly the simplest explanation of things.