This discussion stems from another thread:


My last comment:

Oh really........then what is it. Your "no its not" comment failed to lead me in the right direction. You keep saying I am trolling. All it says to me is that you have nothing to discredit my statements with. So, by saying that I am trolling and not saying why or how I am wrong, you are the one who is trolling. Making statements that you are unable to back up. Edit: Care to explain to me then why we see a diffrent level of nerve cell activity with varying states of consciousness?????

Alright Tan. Put your money where your mouth is.


Edit: For everyone else, is it god or biology?

Some objections to materialism.


Objection 1: The Explanatory Gap and The Hard Problem

Joseph Levine (1983) coined the expression “the explanatory gap” to express a difficulty for any materialistic attempt to explain consciousness. Although not concerned to reject the metaphysics of materialism, Levine gives eloquent expression to the idea that there is a key gap in our ability to explain the connection between phenomenal properties and brain properties (see also Levine 1993, 2001). The basic problem is that it is, at least at present, very difficult for us to understand the relationship between brain properties and phenomenal properties in any explanatory satisfying way, especially given the fact that it seems possible for one to be present without the other. There is an odd kind of arbitrariness involved: Why or how does some particular brain process produce that particular taste or visual sensation? It is difficult to see any real explanatory connection between specific conscious states and brain states in a way that explains just how or why the former are identical with the latter. There is therefore an explanatory gap between the physical and mental. Levine argues that this difficulty in explaining consciousness is unique; that is, we do not have similar worries about other scientific identities, such as that “water is H2O” or that “heat is mean molecular kinetic energy.” There is “an important sense in which we can’t really understand how [materialism] could be true.” (2001: 68)

David Chalmers (1995) has articulated a similar worry by using the catchy phrase “the hard problem of consciousness,” which basically refers to the difficulty of explaining just how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective conscious experiences. The “really hard problem is the problem of experience…How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion?” (1995: 201) Others have made similar points, as Chalmers acknowledges, but reference to the phrase “the hard problem” has now become commonplace in the literature. Unlike Levine, however, Chalmers is much more inclined to draw anti-materialist metaphysical conclusions from these and other considerations. Chalmers usefully distinguishes the hard problem of consciousness from what he calls the (relatively) “easy problems” of consciousness, such as the ability to discriminate and categorize stimuli, the ability of a cognitive system to access its own internal states, and the difference between wakefulness and sleep. The easy problems generally have more to do with the functions of consciousness, but Chalmers urges that solving them does not touch the hard problem of phenomenal consciousness. Most philosophers, according to Chalmers, are really only addressing the easy problems, perhaps merely with something like Block’s “access consciousness” in mind. Their theories ignore phenomenal consciousness.

There are many responses by materialists to the above charges, but it is worth emphasizing that Levine, at least, does not reject the metaphysics of materialism. Instead, he sees the “explanatory gap [as] primarily an epistemological problem” (2001: 10). That is, it is primarily a problem having to do with knowledge or understanding. This concession is still important at least to the extent that one is concerned with the larger related metaphysical issues discussed in section 3a, such as the possibility of immortality.

Perhaps most important for the materialist, however, is recognition of the fact that different concepts can pick out the same property or object in the world (Loar 1990, 1997). Out in the world there is only the one “stuff,” which we can conceptualize either as “water” or as “H2O.” The traditional distinction, made most notably by Gottlob Frege in the late 19th century, between “meaning” (or “sense”) and “reference” is also relevant here. Two or more concepts, which can have different meanings, can refer to the same property or object, much like “Venus” and “The Morning Star.” Materialists, then, explain that it is essential to distinguish between mental properties and our concepts of those properties. By analogy, there are so-called “phenomenal concepts” which uses a phenomenal or “first-person” property to refer to some conscious mental state, such as a sensation of red. In contrast, we can also use various concepts couched in physical or neurophysiological terms to refer to that same mental state from the third-person point of view. There is thus but one conscious mental state which can be conceptualized in two different ways: either by employing first-person experiential phenomenal concepts or by employing third-person neurophysiological concepts. It may then just be a “brute fact” about the world that there are such identities and the appearance of arbitrariness between brain properties and mental properties is just that – an apparent problem leading many to wonder about the alleged explanatory gap. Qualia would then still be identical to physical properties. Moreover, this response provides a diagnosis for why there even seems to be such a gap; namely, that we use very different concepts to pick out the same property. Science will be able, in principle, to close the gap and solve the hard problem of consciousness in an analogous way that we now have a very good understanding for why “water is H2O” or “heat is mean molecular kinetic energy” that was lacking centuries ago. Maybe the hard problem isn’t so hard after all – it will just take some more time. After all, the science of chemistry didn’t develop overnight and we are relatively early in the history of neurophysiology and our understanding of phenomenal consciousness. (See Shear 1997 for many more specific responses to the hard problem, but also for Chalmers’ counter-replies.)

Objection 2: The Knowledge Argument

There is a pair of very widely discussed, and arguably related, objections to materialism which come from the seminal writings of Thomas Nagel (1974) and Frank Jackson (1982, 1986). These arguments, especially Jackson’s, have come to be known as examples of the “knowledge argument” against materialism, due to their clear emphasis on the epistemological (that is, knowledge related) limitations of materialism. Like Levine, Nagel does not reject the metaphysics of materialism. Jackson had originally intended for his argument to yield a dualistic conclusion, but he no longer holds that view. The general pattern of each argument is to assume that all the physical facts are known about some conscious mind or conscious experience. Yet, the argument goes, not all is known about the mind or experience. It is then inferred that the missing knowledge is non-physical in some sense, which is surely an anti-materialist conclusion in some sense.

Nagel imagines a future where we know everything physical there is to know about some other conscious creature’s mind, such as a bat. However, it seems clear that we would still not know something crucial; namely, “what it is like to be a bat.” It will not do to imagine what it is like for us to be a bat. We would still not know what it is like to be a bat from the bat’s subjective or first-person point of view. The idea, then, is that if we accept the hypothesis that we know all of the physical facts about bat minds, and yet some knowledge about bat minds is left out, then materialism is inherently flawed when it comes to explaining consciousness. Even in an ideal future in which everything physical is known by us, something would still be left out. Jackson’s somewhat similar, but no less influential, argument begins by asking us to imagine a future where a person, Mary, is kept in a black and white room from birth during which time she becomes a brilliant neuroscientist and an expert on color perception. Mary never sees red for example, but she learns all of the physical facts and everything neurophysiologically about human color vision. Eventually she is released from the room and sees red for the first time. Jackson argues that it is clear that Mary comes to learn something new; namely, to use Nagel’s famous phrase, what it is like to experience red. This is a new piece of knowledge and hence she must have come to know some non-physical fact (since, by hypothesis, she already knew all of the physical facts). Thus, not all knowledge about the conscious mind is physical knowledge.

The influence and the quantity of work that these ideas have generated cannot be exaggerated. Numerous materialist responses to Nagel’s argument have been presented (such as Van Gulick 1985), and there is now a very useful anthology devoted entirely to Jackson’s knowledge argument (Ludlow et. al. 2004). Some materialists have wondered if we should concede up front that Mary wouldn’t be able to imagine the color red even before leaving the room, so that maybe she wouldn’t even be surprised upon seeing red for the first time. Various suspicions about the nature and effectiveness of such thought experiments also usually accompany this response. More commonly, however, materialists reply by arguing that Mary does not learn a new fact when seeing red for the first time, but rather learns the same fact in a different way. Recalling the distinction made in section 3b.i between concepts and objects or properties, the materialist will urge that there is only the one physical fact about color vision, but there are two ways to come to know it: either by employing neurophysiological concepts or by actually undergoing the relevant experience and so by employing phenomenal concepts. We might say that Mary, upon leaving the black and white room, becomes acquainted with the same neural property as before, but only now from the first-person point of view. The property itself isn’t new; only the perspective, or what philosophers sometimes call the “mode of presentation,” is different. In short, coming to learn or know something new does not entail learning some new fact about the world. Analogies are again given in other less controversial areas, for example, one can come to know about some historical fact or event by reading a (reliable) third-person historical account or by having observed that event oneself. But there is still only the one objective fact under two different descriptions. Finally, it is crucial to remember that, according to most, the metaphysics of materialism remains unaffected. Drawing a metaphysical conclusion from such purely epistemological premises is always a questionable practice. Nagel’s argument doesn’t show that bat mental states are not identical with bat brain states. Indeed, a materialist might even expect the conclusion that Nagel draws; after all, given that our brains are so different from bat brains, it almost seems natural for there to be certain aspects of bat experience that we could never fully comprehend. Only the bat actually undergoes the relevant brain processes. Similarly, Jackson’s argument doesn’t show that Mary’s color experience is distinct from her brain processes.

Despite the plethora of materialist responses, vigorous debate continues as there are those who still think that something profound must always be missing from any materialist attempt to explain consciousness; namely, that understanding subjective phenomenal consciousness is an inherently first-person activity which cannot be captured by any objective third-person scientific means, no matter how much scientific knowledge is accumulated. Some knowledge about consciousness is essentially limited to first-person knowledge. Such a sense, no doubt, continues to fuel the related anti-materialist intuitions raised in the previous section. Perhaps consciousness is simply a fundamental or irreducible part of nature in some sense (Chalmers 1996). (For more see Van Gulick 1993.)

Objection 3: Mysterianism

Finally, some go so far as to argue that we are simply not capable of solving the problem of consciousness (McGinn 1989, 1991, 1995). In short, “mysterians” believe that the hard problem can never be solved because of human cognitive limitations; the explanatory gap can never be filled. Once again, however, McGinn does not reject the metaphysics of materialism, but rather argues that we are “cognitively closed” with respect to this problem much like a rat or dog is cognitively incapable of solving, or even understanding, calculus problems. More specifically, McGinn claims that we are cognitively closed as to how the brain produces conscious awareness. McGinn concedes that some brain property produces conscious experience, but we cannot understand how this is so or even know what that brain property is. Our concept forming mechanisms simply will not allow us to grasp the physical and causal basis of consciousness. We are not conceptually suited to be able to do so.

McGinn does not entirely rest his argument on past failed attempts at explaining consciousness in materialist terms; instead, he presents another argument for his admittedly pessimistic conclusion. McGinn observes that we do not have a mental faculty that can access both consciousness and the brain. We access consciousness through introspection or the first-person perspective, but our access to the brain is through the use of outer spatial senses (e.g., vision) or a more third-person perspective. Thus we have no way to access both the brain and consciousness together, and therefore any explanatory link between them is forever beyond our reach.



Cited from:

Quoted: Snip... Cited from: www.iep.utm.edu/1/iep.jpg

Damn. You are going to have to wait until I get off work to read that book.


Edit: I havent read it but I noticed it was philosophical. Philosophical arguments mean absolutly jack nothing when it comes to science and facts. FWIW


Philosophy can never explain scientific observations. Conciousness is a scientific observation and can be observed by detecting the interaction between cells as I already stated.


i dont know if your article adresses my statements or not. Just putting it out there.  

Quoted: Quoted: Snip... Cited from: www.iep.utm.edu/1/iep.jpg Damn. You are going to have to wait until I get off work to read that book. Edit: I havent read it but I noticed it was philosophical. Philosophical arguments mean absolutly jack nothing when it comes to science and facts. FWIW Philosophy can never explain scientific observations. Conciousness is a scientific observation and can be observed by detecting the interaction between cells as I already stated. i dont know if your article adresses my statements or not. Just putting it out there.

Once you have digested that:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Snip... Cited from: www.iep.utm.edu/1/iep.jpg Damn. You are going to have to wait until I get off work to read that book. Edit: I havent read it but I noticed it was philosophical. Philosophical arguments mean absolutly jack nothing when it comes to science and facts. FWIW Philosophy can never explain scientific observations. Conciousness is a scientific observation and can be observed by detecting the interaction between cells as I already stated. i dont know if your article adresses my statements or not. Just putting it out there.   Once you have digested that: plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

I didnt see any "physical explanation" on the "table of contents"



How can you try and explain conciousness with out adressing the PHYSICAL characteristics that it has?????



In fact. It seems philosophy doesnt take any stand on it what so ever. Which leads me to ask. What do you think the soul is????

Quoted: Philosophy can never explain scientific observations. Conciousness is a scientific observation and can be observed by detecting the interaction between cells as I already stated. i dont know if your article adresses my statements or not. Just putting it out there.

Yes, it adressed it, and it raises objections to the notion of pure materialism.

Quoted: Quoted: Philosophy can never explain scientific observations. Conciousness is a scientific observation and can be observed by detecting the interaction between cells as I already stated. i dont know if your article adresses my statements or not. Just putting it out there.   Yes, it adressed it, and it raises objections to the notion of pure materialism.

Thats the thing......this IS a physical world. There is no evidence for anything else to control conciousness other then the physical evidence we already have.

Consciousness, or "awareness of being" occurred in humans thousands of years ago.  Such awareness is one of the primary factors that separates us from the lower animals.  There's certainly nothing metaphysical about consciousness.  

Quoted: Consciousness, or "awareness of being" occurred in humans thousands of years ago.  Such awareness is one of the primary factors that separates us from the lower animals.  There's certainly nothing metaphysical about consciousness.

"awareness of being" is not the definition we are talking about. Many animals have a conciousness. We are not seperated from them.


Think about dogs dreaming and such, then you will understand. Alos, you didnt mention the fact that brain function can be measured and is a function of the conscious stae you are in. Conciousness is nothing but metaphysical.

Quoted: Consciousness, or "awareness of being" occurred in humans thousands of years ago.  Such awareness is one of the primary factors that separates us from the lower animals.  There's certainly nothing metaphysical about consciousness.

Well, that is your opinion, however it is one you cannot prove.

"Vastly more ancient knowledge has been abandoned in favor of modern science and discovery that the ancient information that's been retained as having any universal value in modern times. Basic, basic stuff here". M4

Quoted: Thats the thing......this IS a physical world. There is no evidence for anything else to control conciousness other then the physical evidence we already have.

Just because a electroencephalogram cannot measure a soul, or consciousness, does not mean they do not exist. It only means that material machines cannot measure immaterial realities. But we can use human reason, as was done in the links provided, to challenge, on legitimate grounds, the notion that the inability to take a machine, plug it into a wall, and measure the human soul, God, or consciousness, is evidence that only material reality exists.

"Vastly more ancient knowledge has been abandoned in favor of modern science and discovery that the ancient information that's been retained as having any universal value in modern times. Basic, basic stuff here". M4

Quoted: Quoted: Thats the thing......this IS a physical world. There is no evidence for anything else to control conciousness other then the physical evidence we already have. Just because a electroencephalogram cannot measure a soul, or consciousness, does not mean they do not exist. It only means that material machines cannot measure immaterial realities. But we can use human reason, as was done in the links provided, to challenge, on legitimate grounds, the notion that the inability to take a machine, plug it into a wall, and measure the human soul, God, or consciousness, is evidence that only material reality exists. "Vastly more ancient knowledge has been abandoned in favor of modern science and discovery that the ancient information that's been retained as having any universal value in modern times. Basic, basic stuff here". M4

Thats the thing. I am arguing that we cant take a machine and "measure" the human soul because it doesnt exist. As for consciousness, like I stated, we CAN measure it!!!! It is very much physical.

I did read the part of the link above that touched on metaphysical aspects. First, the link is incorrect in its definitions because to call something a "theory" menas that you have some facts to support it. They have NO facts supporting that consciousness is anything other than physical, thus it should not be classified as a theory. All they do is state random "theories" and do not elaborate on them. They state NO facts to support them.

Definition of a theory: "In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

Some questions:


Why can consciousness be controled by medication/drugs if it is not physical? When enough alcohol stops the brains cells from comunicating we lose consciousness. Why?


Why, when certain areas of the brain are damaged do the victums of said trauma sometimes experience varying forms of consciousness?

Quoted:
Thats the thing. I am arguing that we cant take a machine and "measure" the human soul because it doesnt exist.
But you are also basing your belief that it does not exist on the fact that it cannot be measured, which simply makes it a tautology.

As for consciousness, like I stated, we CAN measure it!!!! It is very much physical.
There is a reason that the idea of consciousness being material is only considered a theory.

I did read the part of the link above that touched on metaphysical aspects. First, the link is incorrect in its definitions because to call something a "theory" menas that you have some facts to support it. They have NO facts supporting that consciousness is anything other than physical, thus it should not be classified as a theory. All they do is state random "theories" and do not elaborate on them. They state NO facts to support them.
They present the facts of the flaws of materialism as evidence that the theory of materialism is itself a flawed theory.

Definition of a theory: "In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."
Here are some more legitimate definitions:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.



Some questions:
Why can consciousness be controled by medication/drugs if it is not physical? When enough alcohol stops the brains cells from comunicating we lose consciousness. Why?
For the same reason that if you take enough of those drugs, you will also lose the connection between the soul and the body, even though the soul itself is immaterial.

Why, when certain areas of the brain are damaged do the victums of said trauma sometimes experience varying forms of consciousness?
Because while consciousness is a power/characteristic of the human soul (which has 3 divisions of powers: vegetative, sensitive, and cognitive www.newadvent.org/summa/1078.htm) another characteristic is union with the body. How this union is achieved, how in fact do immaterial and material realites affect each other, is still an ongoing discussion, but an intensely interesting one.

"Vastly more ancient knowledge has been abandoned in favor of modern science and discovery that the ancient information that's been retained as having any universal value in modern times. Basic, basic stuff here". M4

Quoted: Edit: For everyone else, is it god or biology?

Personally, I don't see why it can't be both. Why would God create the universe and all it's laws unless he intended to use them to suit His purposes? People can argue all they want, but in my view, God created everything, including science and biology and the fact that we are slowly learning a little (and I do mean a _little_) about how some of it works certainly does not make me question the existence of God or of his ability to grant an afterlife to the soul. - Now, I do believe that through time there have been countless individuals and groups (the catholic church in the middle ages for instance) who have taken it on themselves to stifle anything that might put their interpretation of the Bible and the nature of things into question, but I tend to think that that phenomenon is due to the same sort of corruption that was pointed out by Martin Luther. The church was making a lot of money on things as they were, and certain of their leaders didn't want people questioning anything that might hurt their pocket books. - But that is human greed and human failings. To me, none of that makes me question whether God and/or the soul exist. It just makes me less than trusting of people who simply claim to be speaking for God and/or people who try to tell me that God and science can't and don't mix.

Just my .02.

Quoted: Quoted: Consciousness, or "awareness of being" occurred in humans thousands of years ago.  Such awareness is one of the primary factors that separates us from the lower animals.  There's certainly nothing metaphysical about consciousness.   "awareness of being" is not the definition we are talking about. Many animals have a conciousness. We are not seperated from them. Think about dogs dreaming and such, then you will understand. Alos, you didnt mention the fact that brain function can be measured and is a function of the conscious stae you are in. Conciousness is nothing but metaphysical.

Total crap!  What we are talking about is awareness of being.  We are separated (spelled correctly, I might add) from the lower animals.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Consciousness, or "awareness of being" occurred in humans thousands of years ago.  Such awareness is one of the primary factors that separates us from the lower animals.  There's certainly nothing metaphysical about consciousness.   "awareness of being" is not the definition we are talking about. Many animals have a conciousness. We are not seperated from them. Think about dogs dreaming and such, then you will understand. Alos, you didnt mention the fact that brain function can be measured and is a function of the conscious stae you are in. Conciousness is nothing but metaphysical. Total crap!  What we are talking about is awareness of being.  We are separated (spelled correctly, I might add) from the lower animals.

The ONLY way you and I are separated from the lower animals is because of our intelligence! Intelligence gives us the ability to form culture, which in turn leads to things like religon and the soul. We are intelligent enough to "make these things up" -no offense intended, just my wording.


We ARE animals. We have DNA, proteins, cells, and bacteria living inside us like all other animals.

Thats the thing. I am arguing that we cant take a machine and "measure" the human soul because it doesnt exist. But you are also basing your belief that it does not exist on the fact that it cannot be measured, which simply makes it a tautology.

Science cant disprove/measure something that doesnt exist.

As for consciousness, like I stated, we CAN measure it!!!! It is very much physical. There is a reason that the idea of consciousness being material is only considered a theory.

Consciousness itself is NOT a theory. We know it exists. It IS a (scientific) theory in that we are unsure where it comes from. However, we do know it is biological.
Link

Definition of a theory: "In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation." Here are some more legitimate definitions: 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. 3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. 5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles. 6. contemplation or speculation. 7. guess or conjecture.

Ill give you this one, there are many deffinitions of "theory". I was speaking in the form of a scientific theory. My problem with their wording is that to discredit a scientific theory like they are doing (a soul is biological), they have to obey scientific laws. They are not, and thus they are not being scientific.

Why can consciousness be controled by medication/drugs if it is not physical? When enough alcohol stops the brains cells from comunicating we lose consciousness. Why? For the same reason that if you take enough of those drugs, you will also lose the connection between the soul and the body, even though the soul itself is immaterial.

How can immaterial be connected to material. If, in fact you think there is a soul connected to the body. It MUST obey the scientific law and be made of some sort of matter. We could then test it, But, we cant and there is no evidence for a soul.

Why, when certain areas of the brain are damaged do the victums of said trauma sometimes experience varying forms of consciousness? Because while consciousness is a power/characteristic of the human soul (which has 3 divisions of powers: vegetative, sensitive, and cognitive www.newadvent.org/summa/1078.htm) another characteristic is union with the body. How this union is achieved, how in fact do immaterial and material realites affect each other, is still an ongoing discussion, but an intensely interesting one.

Same as above. There is no proof for a "soul". I believe it is nothing but a figment of "mans" imagination and their desire to not be alone. They "must" have something to carry on when they die.

Quoted:
Science cant disprove/measure something that doesnt exist.
Nor can it prove/measure everything that does.

Consciousness itself is NOT a theory.
But what it is, is a theory.

we do know it is biological.
No we don't. That is also a theory. All that we know is that there is a relation that we do not understand between the material and the immaterial, between the body and the soul, between the brain and consciousness. But the body is not the soul, and the brain is not counsciousness. And neither you, nor science, can prove otherwise.


Ill give you this one, there are many deffinitions of "theory". I was speaking in the form of a scientific theory. My problem with their wording is that to discredit a scientific theory like they are doing (a soul is biological), they have to obey scientific laws. They are not, and thus they are not being scientific.
There is also more than one defintion of science. You simply choose to again use a materialistic definition.


How can immaterial be connected to material. If, in fact you think there is a soul connected to the body. It MUST obey the scientific law and be made of some sort of matter.
No, it mustn't. Not even matter always obeys "scientific law" (whatever that means.).


Same as above. There is no proof for a "soul".
Except for consciousness, but you simply do not except that. There is also the ontological proofs of immaterial reality, but you simply choose not to believe them as well.

I believe it is nothing but a figment of "mans" imagination and their desire to not be alone. They "must" have something to carry on when they die.
That is your scientifically unproven belief, and you're certainly welcome to it.

"Vastly more ancient knowledge has been abandoned in favor of modern science and discovery that the ancient information that's been retained as having any universal value in modern times. Basic, basic stuff here". M4

Quoted: Quoted: Science cant disprove/measure something that doesnt exist. Nor can it prove/measure everything that does. No, but the idea of a soul violates specific scientific laws. Even though we cant "prove" it doesnt exist, we know it CANT exist. At least in the way you describe it (immaterial). Consciousness itself is NOT a theory. But what it is, is a theory. we do know it is biological. No we don't. That is also a theory. All that we know is that there is a relation that we do not understand between the material and the immaterial, between the body and the soul, between the brain and consciousness. But the body is not the soul, and the brain is not counsciousness. And neither you, nor science, can prove otherwise. Its the best model.....its more then you have Ill give you this one, there are many deffinitions of "theory". I was speaking in the form of a scientific theory. My problem with their wording is that to discredit a scientific theory like they are doing (a soul is biological), they have to obey scientific laws. They are not, and thus they are not being scientific. There is also more than one defintion of science. You simply choose to again use a materialistic definition. Again, I use materialistic because it is WHAT THE ENTIRE WORLD IS. THIS IS A PHYSICAL WORLD. Philosophy can not prove otherwise. Science makes advancements everyday based on this "fact" that this is a physical world How can immaterial be connected to material. If, in fact you think there is a soul connected to the body. It MUST obey the scientific law and be made of some sort of matter. No, it mustn't. Not even matter always obeys "scientific law" (whatever that means.). LOL.....matter sure does. You clearly have no scientific background. Same as above. There is no proof for a "soul". Except for consciousness, but you simply do not except that. There is also the ontological proofs of immaterial reality, but you simply choose not to believe them as well. I believe it is nothing but a figment of "mans" imagination and their desire to not be alone. They "must" have something to carry on when they die. That is your scientifically unproven belief, and you're certainly welcome to it. "Vastly more ancient knowledge has been abandoned in favor of modern science and discovery that the ancient information that's been retained as having any universal value in modern times. Basic, basic stuff here". M4

Quoted:
No, but the idea of a soul violates specific scientific laws.
No, it doesn't. And you can name one that it does and you know that. Which begs the question as to why you are posting this.

Even though we cant "prove" it doesnt exist, we know it CANT exist. At least in the way you describe it (immaterial).
Immaterial is the only way in can exist.

Its the best model.....its more then you have
Actually, it is materialism that lives in a confined box. You must reduce your philosophy to simple marxist materialistic atheism. What could be more boring than that?

Again, I use materialistic because it is WHAT THE ENTIRE WORLD IS. THIS IS A PHYSICAL WORLD. Philosophy can not prove otherwise.
Sure it can, you just have chosen to never study the matter.

Science makes advancements everyday based on this "fact" that this is a physical world
No, it simply makes advances in the physical world, which is all it can do, as you have already admitted.

LOL.....matter sure does. You clearly have no scientific background.
Alright, was/is there ever a time when the physical "laws of science" did/do not control material reality?  Careful, if you say no it would mean your are a complete moronic idiot, and we would not want that.

And since you brought it up, what exactly is your "scientific background"?

"Vastly more ancient knowledge has been abandoned in favor of modern science and discovery that the ancient information that's been retained as having any universal value in modern times. Basic, basic stuff here". M4

 

No, it doesn't. And you can name one that it does and you know that. Which begs the question as to why you are posting this.

What law doesnt it violate?

Even though we cant "prove" it doesnt exist, we know it CANT exist. At least in the way you describe it (immaterial). Immaterial is the only way in can exist.

Immaterial is the only way it can exist because that is all that exists. Since immaterial is the only way it can exist why is it that we have never discovered this "soul"?

Its the best model.....its more then you have Actually, it is materialism that lives in a confined box. You must reduce your philosophy to simple marxist materialistic atheism. What could be more boring than that?

To me, this statement means you understand what I am saying and almost agree with it, but it is more "fun" to think this physical world is not the only thing.

Again, I use materialistic because it is WHAT THE ENTIRE WORLD IS. THIS IS A PHYSICAL WORLD. Philosophy can not prove otherwise. Sure it can, you just have chosen to never study the matter.

Enlighten me. What is the proof

Science makes advancements everyday based on this "fact" that this is a physical world No, it simply makes advances in the physical world, which is all it can do, as you have already admitted.

There is no other world, except the physical world.

LOL.....matter sure does. You clearly have no scientific background. Alright, was/is there ever a time when the physical "laws of science" did/do not control material reality? Careful, if you say no it would mean your are a complete moronic idiot, and we would not want that.

As I stated before, subatomic particles are not constrained to the "physical laws", well sort of. They are constrained to their own physical laws. Im sure you could search the internet for other things. I have seen anti-evolution sites that claim evolution violates it, but when you look at the site and you look at the reason they say this they are very wrong.  
Why dont you go ahead and show me a scientific paper or peer reviewed paper that violates scientific law in their research......

And since you brought it up, what exactly is your "scientific background"?

I have my degree in Chemistry......how about you.

Quoted:
What law doesnt it violate?
I'll take this as a confession that you cannot name one.


Immaterial is the only way it can exist because that is all that exists.
No, what exists is the material and the immaterial.

Since immaterial is the only way it can exist why is it that we have never discovered this "soul"?
Because it is immaterial.


To me, this statement means you understand what I am saying and almost agree with it, but it is more "fun" to think this physical world is not the only thing.
"Fun" has precious little to do with science. It is however infinitely more interesting.

Enlighten me. What is the proof
I already pointed you in the right ontological direction.


There is no other world, except the physical world.
Here are two things regarding this statement you keep making:
1. You can't know that, and you know it.
2. You can't prove that, and you know it.



As I stated before, subatomic particles are not constrained to the "physical laws", well sort of. They are constrained to their own physical laws.
You did not answer the question. Yes, or no?

"Vastly more ancient knowledge has been abandoned in favor of modern science and discovery that the ancient information that's been retained as having any universal value in modern times. Basic, basic stuff here". M4

Quoted: Quoted: What law doesnt it violate? I'll take this as a confession that you cannot name one. Ummm...all of them. Conservation of energy, mass....etc. Immaterial is the only way it can exist because that is all that exists. No, what exists is the material and the immaterial. Prove the immaterial world exists....you cant Since immaterial is the only way it can exist why is it that we have never discovered this "soul"? Because it is immaterial.  Typo....I meant material. To me, this statement means you understand what I am saying and almost agree with it, but it is more "fun" to think this physical world is not the only thing. "Fun" has precious little to do with science. It is however infinitely more interesting. Enlighten me. What is the proof I already pointed you in the right ontological direction. No, I want PROOF, scientific proof. There is no other world, except the physical world. Here are two things regarding this statement you keep making: 1. You can't know that, and you know it. 2. You can't prove that, and you know it. Ok, then prove me wrong. As I stated before, subatomic particles are not constrained to the "physical laws", well sort of. They are constrained to their own physical laws. You did not answer the question. Yes, or no? OK, the scientific laws are followed. So whats your degree in? "Vastly more ancient knowledge has been abandoned in favor of modern science and discovery that the ancient information that's been retained as having any universal value in modern times. Basic, basic stuff here". M4

Quoted:
. Conservation of energy, mass....etc.
No, it does not violate either of those. Try again.

Prove the immaterial world exists....you cant
Nor can you prove, or even state with confidence, that it does not exist.

No, I want PROOF, scientific proof.
Which only highlights the fact that you have no idea what it is you are even talking about.

 
Ok, then prove me wrong.
No need to prove someone wrong who has not been able to provide any evidence that they are right.

OK, the scientific laws are followed.
No, they are not always followed, and never have been, which rather makes your entire argument that everything must obey the "scientific laws" come completely unraveled. It also gives evidence that you really don't know that much about science to begin with if you are not aware of this 'scientific truth'.

"Vastly more ancient knowledge has been abandoned in favor of modern science and discovery that the ancient information that's been retained as having any universal value in modern times. Basic, basic stuff here". M4

Tan, I don't know why you're bothering to argue with him. There's nothing you can do or say to get some atheists to consider the possibility of the unknowable or in many cases, the knowable, but currently unknown. They're too closed minded for that. I think you'd do better spending time with fence sitters who are open to various possibilities instead of arguing with a rock. But that's just me.

height=8

Quoted: Just because a electroencephalogram cannot measure a soul, or consciousness, does not mean they do not exist. It only means that material machines cannot measure immaterial realities. But we can use human reason, as was done in the links provided, to challenge, on legitimate grounds, the notion that the inability to take a machine, plug it into a wall, and measure the human soul, God, or consciousness, is evidence that only material reality exists.

So your argument for the souls existance is that it cannot be proven nonexistant?

Quoted:
Quoted:
. Conservation of energy, mass....etc.
No, it does not violate either of those. Try again. I forgot, it doesnt exist so it is not subject to physical laws. Yet, somehow it exists.

Prove the immaterial world exists....you cant
Nor can you prove, or even state with confidence, that it does not exist. So your default setting is that it exists because you cant prove it doesnt?

No, I want PROOF, scientific proof.
Which only highlights the fact that you have no idea what it is you are even talking about.  Why???

 
Ok, then prove me wrong.
No need to prove someone wrong who has not been able to provide any evidence that they are right. and you have.....not one time have you sited any facts.
OK, the scientific laws are followed.
No, they are not always followed, and never have been, which rather makes your entire argument that everything must obey the "scientific laws" come completely unraveled. It also gives evidence that you really don't know that much about science to begin with if you are not aware of this 'scientific truth'. Instead of just saying that I am wrong and leaving it at that. Why dont you go ahead and give me an example.

Quoted:
I forgot, it doesnt exist so it is not subject to physical laws. Yet, somehow it exists.
You have never once explained how immaterial reality need be subject to the physical laws of material reality. What you have done is demonstrate that you are completely clueless because you did not even know that the laws of physics did not, and do not, even govern all of material reality. The FACT that you don't know this scientific truth, the FACT that you were so completely wrong, says everything about how little your really know.

thats a wrap