-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
body-body problem
- Thread starter GrowingSmaller
- Start date
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
I think the problem is thinking that everything has a "deeper" answer. For instance, the answer to why quarks behave the way they do might simply because that's one of their inherent properties. Why? There might simply not be a reason. It's not just that we don't know it, it's that there isn't any. They act the way they do because they can.
I know it's not a particularly satisfying answer to many but truth sometimes isn't.
Upvote
0
Sure. You'll still be lacking any sort of evidence of a soul, descriptions of what this interaction is, or testable theories to differentiate it from similar naturalistic theories, but at least you'll have something. I guess. Actually, that doesn't leave you with much more than an unexplained something which does something you don't even pretend to understand.
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
I think KC hit the nail on the head. You can use that explanation for anything you want. However, the fact remains that we can and do experience matter-matter interaction everyday, whether we can explain it or not. However, we have yet to experience any soul, and therefore any soul-body interactions.
Upvote
0
Experience? You mean see under a microscope or something. But if a soul is immaterial one would not expect that anyway, just as one would not expect to find the number one in a haystack. I suppose you can presume empiricism, and then adduce its utility via science, I have no problems with that. But I don't think lack of empirical soul data actually demonstrates a lack of soul.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Irrelevant. We experience, detect, and observe matter and interactions of matter with other every single day. As per your own admission, we can't and haven't experienced, detected, or observed the soul. Therefore, we can't say ANYTHING it and much less about soul-body interactions. At least, nothing better or more valid than anyone else's guess.
Upvote
0
Nor does lack of evidence for invisible pink unicorns demonstrate a lack of invisible pink unicorns.
Upvote
0
I have no idea why you would even want to say that, in the context of the current conversaiton that is...
Upvote
0
What about self awareness. If there is a soul then we may be aware of it. I think that this is the type of consciousness typically regarded as soul awareness by pre-moderns.
I will to move my hand, my hand moves, is a candidate for soul body interaction. Even if the soul does not exist, the formulation is still logically valid.
Upvote
0
It's relevant in that lack of evidence is only a non-issue for things we'd expect to have no interaction with reality. On the other hand, if you're proposing something that has actual effects in the real world, then a lack of evidence in places we'd expect it should be troubling for people proposing the idea.
Upvote
0
May be? The best you can come up with is that maybe if we have a soul than we might or might not be aware of it? You're proving the previous point that we can't seem to know anything at all about this elusive idea of souls.
Scientific hypotheses requite more than logical validity to be considered. That's what makes science superior to other methods when it come to learning about reality.
Upvote
0
There is as much evidence for invisible pink unicorns as there is for a soul. No evidence for certainly doesn't prove nonexistence, but there still isn't any reason to believe in something which has no evidence for it. There are an infinite number of non-testable ideas you can come up with: invisible pink unicorns, angels, souls, ghosts, etc. and none of them are at all convincing since there is no evidence that demonstrates or implies their existence.
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
We don't seem to be, though. Now, keep in mind that if there is a soul and this soul interacts with matter then, contrary to your prior guess, the soul could be empirically examined "under a microscope." If it can't be empirically detected, then we can't detect it period.
We can call consciousness anything we wan't but just because we change the name, doesn't make it any less physical than any other process of matter.
Irrelevant. Let's not jump the gun since all we have ever observed is matter-matter or matter-energy interactions when people move their hands. No body-soul interactions have been detected, yet.
So, let's find a point in the sequence of events of moving a hand that isn't explained by matter, energy, or as a result of a prior interaction of either and we can go from there.
Upvote
0
I was asked or an example of awareness of a soul. Well if the soul exists, then self awareness seems to be a candidate.
What about maths?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I am not sure how we got dfrom a discussion about not knowing why mater interacts with matter according to certain laws, to discussions about IPUs.I am fully familiar with all that stuff, but would like to know why mattar behaves. That seems to be a mystery that needs explaining.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Look I know thaere is not much evidence for the soul etc, but i would like to stay on another topic rather than be humiliated in a debate on the mind. Why does matter behave lawfully? Why does it not just breach "natural law" (e.g. gravitation) rather than obey rules?
Upvote
0
That won't do. It needs explainging. Why does an apple fall according to the law of gravitation rather than float? "Because it does" is not an explanation, it is just going round in circles. "Because gracity acts on it" presumes the reason gravity acts on it is because gravity acts on it. Anther circle. Now are you really saying that this question implies I am anthropomorphising?Because matter can´t reconcile disobedience with its conscience.
Upvote
0
Well, I think there´s a time in life (when you are around 3 years old) to exhaustively explore "why?" questions and eventually learn that this technique only goes so far.
An object doesn´t fall because it obeys the law of gravitation. We observe mechanisms and call them "laws". We have found out why objects fall down instead of floating around. Gravitation theory explains it satisfactorily.
No, I am saying that they are loaded with false premises.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
