Falsifiability

[Yttrium]

AWhat is the explanation for why brains have this capacity to acquire true propositions about states of affairs.

The brain receives sensory information from all parts of the body. It stores and processes information electrochemically. This doesn't necessarily explain consciousness, of course.

I think all your philosophical exposition about "intent" and such can be summed up to: How can the brain form a consciousness without a soul? One could equally ask: How can the soul form a consciousness? How does the soul work with the brain to collect and process information? By adding the soul, you've added an extra level of complexity. Perhaps that extra level of complexity is necessary. Perhaps it isn't. The simpler solution is usually the answer, although sometimes it isn't.

 

[Sanoy]

The brain receives sensory information from all parts of the body. It stores and processes information electrochemically. This doesn't necessarily explain consciousness, of course.

I think all your philosophical exposition about "intent" and such can be summed up to: How can the brain form a consciousness without a soul? One could equally ask: How can the soul form a consciousness? How does the soul work with the brain to collect and process information? By adding the soul, you've added an extra level of complexity. Perhaps that extra level of complexity is necessary. Perhaps it isn't. The simpler solution is usually the answer, although sometimes it isn't.

Your description of the electrochemical process provides an explanation for the vocalization of propositions (display on the calculator) but not why what is vocalized has any meaning in regards to the truth. The later is what I'm asking.

Not intent, but intentionality; it's a philosophical term regarding "aboutness". The soul is a consciousness. The soul uses the brain like you use a computer. If you want to invoke Occam's razor based on complexity and simplicity the brain is magnitudes more complex having an enormous amount of parts compared to a soul. So according to the provided heuristic, we should go with the soul. When consciousness fails to be reducible to it's hypothesized parts it requires a hypothesis that transcends such parts. It is presently irreducible.

 

[Yttrium]

Your description of the electrochemical process provides an explanation for the vocalization of propositions (display on the calculator) but not why what is vocalized has any meaning in regards to the truth. The later is what I'm asking.

I know it's what you're asking. The answer is that we currently don't know.

If you want to invoke Occam's razor based on complexity and simplicity the brain is magnitudes more complex having an enormous amount of parts compared to a soul.

On the contrary. We have no clue as to what a soul is like. Any time you introduce a mysterious, supernatural entity, you add an unknown level of complexity. That's why conventional use of Occam's razor necessarily omits the supernatural.

When you add the soul on top of the brain, the situation gets even more complex than the brain by itself. And, of course, the brain is very complex.

 

[Sanoy]

On the contrary. We have no clue as to what a soul is like. Any time you introduce a mysterious, supernatural entity, you add an unknown level of complexity. That's why conventional use of Occam's razor necessarily omits the supernatural.

When you add the soul on top of the brain, the situation gets even more complex than the brain by itself. And, of course, the brain is very complex.

Well if we don't know what a soul is like we certainly cannot say it's more complex now can we. However I think we can say what it is not like. It's immaterial, and parts are components of material things. Does "will" have parts? You seem to use improper addition when you compare materialist reduction to a soul. You compare merely the brain for yourself to a (brain + soul) but consciousness is reducible to the soul alone, and irreducible to the brain so you are leaving out parts on your side of the analysis. I don't need a brain to even be a consciousness, so you should not be adding a brain to my side at all. Here is the actual comparison You(enormously complex Brain + elaborate electrochemical processes + X)> (soul).

Occams Razor does not "omit the supernatural". It is a heuristic based on prudence concerns of time and money. People often invoke Occams Razor, as they do for anything they dislike, to try and "omit the supernatural", but it's just a heuristic and has no bearing on what is actually true. Quine once said “If I saw indirect explanatory benefit in positing sensibilia, possibilia, spirits, a Creator, I would joyfully accord them scientific status too, on a par with such avowedly scientific posits as quarks and black holes.” In any case a hypothesis than can acquire the effect is far superior to a simpler hypothesis that doesn't acquire the effect.

 

[Yttrium]

You compare merely the brain for yourself to a (brain + soul) but consciousness is reducible to the soul alone, and irreducible to the brain so you are leaving out parts on your side of the analysis. I don't need a brain to even be a consciousness, so you should not be adding a brain to my side at all.

The thing is that we know that the brain exists. The mechanism for consciousness could be very simple within all that complexity that is used to process and store information, at least as simple as any simplicity you imagine for the soul. We have no way of knowing at this point.

The comparison of complexity for a consciousness from the brain or the soul becomes an unknown versus an unknown. On the other hand, having a consciousness that doesn't depend on the brain would be very nice indeed, so it doesn't hurt to try and find a soul.

 

[Sanoy]

The thing is that we know that the brain exists. The mechanism for consciousness could be very simple within all that complexity that is used to process and store information, at least as simple as any simplicity you imagine for the soul. We have no way of knowing at this point.

The comparison of complexity for a consciousness from the brain or the soul becomes an unknown versus an unknown. On the other hand, having a consciousness that doesn't depend on the brain would be very nice indeed, so it doesn't hurt to try and find a soul.

If 'the brain' is complex and our consciousness is simple then our consciousness is not 'the brain'. Even if the consciousness is less complex than the brain, as long as you hold to a material source it will have many parts, whereas a soul will not be made up of parts.

In order to have the actual answer to what consciousness is we need the intellectual faculties which could acquire an actual answer. If the hypothesis for consciousness fails to acquire such faculties, then it fails to be a hypothesis that could allow us to have the actual answer in the first place. So if we hypothesize that consciousness is merely electrochemical signals, there would be nothing about that conclusion that would provide the faculties to have a true conclusion about our consciousness. Going back to the calculator, the explanation for why the display is correct is not found in the physics of the calculator, but it's teleology. Without teleology the display is meaningless.

 

[Yttrium]

In order to have the actual answer to what consciousness is we need the intellectual faculties which could acquire an actual answer. If the hypothesis for consciousness fails to acquire such faculties, then it fails to be a hypothesis that could allow us to have the actual answer in the first place. So if we hypothesize that consciousness is merely electrochemical signals, there would be nothing about that conclusion that would provide the faculties to have a true conclusion about our consciousness.

Well, I can agree with you on that. Of course, the same would apply to hypothesizing about the soul. For now, we are left wondering, with no solid hypotheses.

 

[Sanoy]

Well, I can agree with you on that. Of course, the same would apply to hypothesizing about the soul. For now, we are left wondering, with no solid hypotheses.

Yep it applies to the soul too. So we can't just hypothesize a soul without teleology either. The soul hypothesis would have to include a teleological explanation. That is where I think God fits really well. If I was going to create both a living being, and world for that living being to live in, I would create that being with intellectual faculties that are oriented toward that world in ways that serve my goal for that created being. Jesus says that He is the truth, which is a rather odd statement at first consideration. But if we are created by God, then truth is that correlation between our intellectual faculties and reality. If our intellectual faculties were put there by God then the statement "I am the Truth" places God as the bedrock of all intellectual pursuits of knowledge and truth. He also claims to be the way and the life, which places Him as the beginning of all things worth pursuing.

 

[Kylie]

Q1. You say "Brains have the capacity to function in this way, other body parts don't". There has to be an explanation for why brains have this capacity while other body parts don't. That has nothing to do with MRIs, or fMRI's. What is the explanation for why brains have this capacity to acquire true propositions about states of affairs.

Because they are made of dense concentrations of neurons.

Q2. Your answer to why I should believe your brain can acquire a true proposition about actual states of affairs is to tell me that your brain states are electrochemical. That does nothing in telling me why I should believe your brain can acquire true propositions about states of affairs. You further state that you know your brain can acquire true propositions by testing the evidence that it receives and seeing if that evidence is self-consistent and also consistent with other true things it has determined. But that is circular. The brain itself is telling you that the brain can acquire true propositions about states of affairs. A calculator can be explained in fully physical terms. If you push 1+1 and hit = pixels form in the shape of a 2. But it can't be explained in physical terms why the 2 on the display has the meaning of being a true proposition. The explanation for that lies in the designer of the calculator. Why does the output of your brain have any meaning regarding the truth. You claimed it had processes but those are just electrochemical signals which say nothing about why it should result in true propositions.

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to ask. I've tried to answer the best I can, even stating, "My brain has the capacity to determine if things are true by testing the evidence that it receives and seeing if that evidence is self-consistent and also consistent with other true things it has determined." You immediately dismissed that by claiming that that was how my brain did it, not me, despite the fact that I have made it very clear that my position is that I am my brain.

Q3. To my question of how matter can have intentionality you reply that you have repeatedly told me that mental states are due to physical matter and electrochemical signals. But that doesn't answer how matter or electrochemical signals can have intentionality. It's just a dodging of the question. If some things have intentionality and others don't then you must explain why and how.

If I draw a point on a piece of paper, and then draw a series of secondary points that are all an equal distance from the first point, but off in different directions, those secondary points will form the outline of a circle. But how can they be circular? What is it that gives those points circularity? You might say that it is because they are all the same distance from a single point, but that doesn't explain how the secondary points obtain circularity.

That's what it's like trying to discuss this with you.

S1.We can establish now that you consider mental events as discreet from the brain matter, but are the mental events also discrete from electrochemical signals?

The mental events are the result of electrochemical signals acting across brain matter.

S2. Ok, so if there is nothing metaphysical about the brain then it should be fully, or capable of being fully described physics and chemistry. That would make it determined. If there is nothing metaphysical here, and everything that you are is reducible to deterministic properties then you haven't really thought about or reasoned through a single claim you have made to me. You were merely determined by the physical and chemical situation in your body to make your remarks while having the experience that you actually thought and reasoned them through. Why should I believe your physical and chemical situation any better than someone else's?

So you think that a complex system that has trillions of connections and is constantly changing is going to be predictable?

Have you never heard of chaos theory? We can't even predict the flow of water coming out of a tap, how do you expect to predict this? The three-body problem is simple compared to the brain, and we can't predict that either. Your optimism is naive.

If you think you have answered the hard problems of consciousness here on this forum you are very mistaken. However you did put in considerable effort in trying so I'm going to answer your question in the trust that you continue to either try to answer these questions, or earnestly admit than you have no answer to them.

Oh, how condescending. You're going to answer my question as a reward to me for having a go. Yay! I get a participation trophy!

Q:Can a soul interact with the real world without using a brain? Yes or no. It's a little more complicated than yes or no because you ask me things beyond my capacity to answer. If it's true that demons and ghosts can move objects and interact with someones consciousness and experiences then yes they can do so without a brain. But you cannot have the full human experience without a full brain.

And your participation trophy is a complete non answer. You have nothing. You can't support your position, and you have several times backflipped on your position. You've got nothing of value to discuss.

 

[Sanoy]

Because they are made of dense concentrations of neurons.



I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to ask. I've tried to answer the best I can, even stating, "My brain has the capacity to determine if things are true by testing the evidence that it receives and seeing if that evidence is self-consistent and also consistent with other true things it has determined." You immediately dismissed that by claiming that that was how my brain did it, not me, despite the fact that I have made it very clear that my position is that I am my brain.



If I draw a point on a piece of paper, and then draw a series of secondary points that are all an equal distance from the first point, but off in different directions, those secondary points will form the outline of a circle. But how can they be circular? What is it that gives those points circularity? You might say that it is because they are all the same distance from a single point, but that doesn't explain how the secondary points obtain circularity.

That's what it's like trying to discuss this with you.



The mental events are the result of electrochemical signals acting across brain matter.



So you think that a complex system that has trillions of connections and is constantly changing is going to be predictable?

Have you never heard of chaos theory? We can't even predict the flow of water coming out of a tap, how do you expect to predict this? The three-body problem is simple compared to the brain, and we can't predict that either. Your optimism is naive.



Oh, how condescending. You're going to answer my question as a reward to me for having a go. Yay! I get a participation trophy!



And your participation trophy is a complete non answer. You have nothing. You can't support your position, and you have several times backflipped on your position. You've got nothing of value to discuss.

Q1. I don't follow your answer. How does being made made of dense concentrations of neurons make something capable of truth acquisition?
Q2. Something is circular when it uses it's conclusion as part of it's premise. Using a brain process as a means of testing your brain process is circular. I'm hoping to hear a reasonable answer, not any answer.
Q3.I don't get your point here. If you don't know how matter has intentionality just say so.

S1. If the The mental events are the result of electrochemical signals acting across brain matter then the mental events are not the brain matter or the electrochemical signals. So what are they under materialism/physicalism?
S2. There is small range of indetermination sure, but it is also largely predictable. We know where the water is going when it comes out of the tap, and we know where it isn't going and thats the majority of the room. There is only a small range of uncertainty. To go from being determined to purely random doesn't solve your problem of being useful in regards to the truth. All you have done is change the statement from "you haven't thought about X", to "you haven't thought about X", or your "statements are purely random". If you want to appeal to chaos theory than you have just made the case that every statement you make is more likely false than true.

I wasn't trying to be condescending. I am trying to be fair toward your questions because you will not be able to provide an answer toward my questions because they are hard problems. I was also trying to say that I recognize that you are trying to answer these questions.

I can certainly say to you that you have nothing. You can't support your position, and you have several times backflipped on your position. You've got nothing of value to discuss. I haven't backflipped you just haven't been reading my statements well. Remember 503? The difference between our two theories is that one is material and one is immaterial. The former should be described by physics and chemistry, the later should not. So expecting me to be able to describe the soul with physics and chemistry is misguided. A soul is something that can only be apprehended, and it appears to be a metaphysical necessity given that physicalism and materialism fail to account for what is there, and fail to provide the means to account for the acquisition of truth. It turns out that there is a metaphysical thing in this world whose properties are only changed by 2 things in the entire world! You know what that is? Other minds, and meaning. Minds are changed by love, Minds are changed by compassion, and they are changed by hatred, frustration, and anger. Chemicals are produced for these things but it is the meaning that changes the heart of the mind. There is no place for a reductionist account of consciousness in this world.

 

[VirOptimus]

Q1. I don't follow your answer. How does being made made of dense concentrations of neurons make something capable of truth acquisition?
Q2. Something is circular when it uses it's conclusion as part of it's premise. Using a brain process as a means of testing your brain process is circular. I'm hoping to hear a reasonable answer, not any answer.
Q3.I don't get your point here. If you don't know how matter has intentionality just say so.

S1. If the The mental events are the result of electrochemical signals acting across brain matter then the mental events are not the brain matter or the electrochemical signals. So what are they under materialism/physicalism?
S2. There is small range of indetermination sure, but it is also largely predictable. We know where the water is going when it comes out of the tap, and we know where it isn't going and thats the majority of the room. There is only a small range of uncertainty. To go from being determined to purely random doesn't solve your problem of being useful in regards to the truth. All you have done is change the statement from "you haven't thought about X", to "you haven't thought about X", or your "statements are purely random". If you want to appeal to chaos theory than you have just made the case that every statement you make is more likely false than true.

I wasn't trying to be condescending. I am trying to be fair toward your questions because you will not be able to provide an answer toward my questions because they are hard problems. I was also trying to say that I recognize that you are trying to answer these questions.

I can certainly say to you that you have nothing. You can't support your position, and you have several times backflipped on your position. You've got nothing of value to discuss. I haven't backflipped you just haven't been reading my statements well. Remember 503? The difference between our two theories is that one is material and one is immaterial. The former should be described by physics and chemistry, the later should not. So expecting me to be able to describe the soul with physics and chemistry is misguided. A soul is something that can only be apprehended, and it appears to be a metaphysical necessity given that physicalism and materialism fail to account for what is there, and fail to provide the means to account for the acquisition of truth. It turns out that there is a metaphysical thing in this world whose properties are only changed by 2 things in the entire world! You know what that is? Other minds, and meaning. Minds are changed by love, Minds are changed by compassion, and they are changed by hatred, frustration, and anger. Chemicals are produced for these things but it is the meaning that changes the heart of the mind. There is no place for a reductionist account of consciousness in this world.

Haha, no. There is no supporting evidence for a metaphysical soul, its all just belief.

 

[Kylie]

Q1. I don't follow your answer. How does being made made of dense concentrations of neurons make something capable of truth acquisition?

You'll have to ask a brain surgeon or something. Unfortunately, as I juggle a marriage, a daughter, a job and a side job, I never got the chance to get an advanced education in the function of Human neuronal function...

Q2. Something is circular when it uses it's conclusion as part of it's premise. Using a brain process as a means of testing your brain process is circular. I'm hoping to hear a reasonable answer, not any answer.

No, I'm explaining how I use my brain to determine truth, not how I use it to test my brain.

Q3.I don't get your point here. If you don't know how matter has intentionality just say so.

I made several points. Please learn how to use quote tags so you can point your comments directly underneath the parts of my post that you are referring to.

S1. If the The mental events are the result of electrochemical signals acting across brain matter then the mental events are not the brain matter or the electrochemical signals. So what are they under materialism/physicalism?

Yes, they are a combination of the two. Since we now (hopefully) have the same idea about my position, let's not waste time trying to figure out what the correct word is. Feel free to make up a random assortment of letters and we'll use that to describe the position.

S2. There is small range of indetermination sure, but it is also largely predictable. We know where the water is going when it comes out of the tap, and we know where it isn't going and thats the majority of the room. There is only a small range of uncertainty. To go from being determined to purely random doesn't solve your problem of being useful in regards to the truth. All you have done is change the statement from "you haven't thought about X", to "you haven't thought about X", or your "statements are purely random". If you want to appeal to chaos theory than you have just made the case that every statement you make is more likely false than true.

Nope. The flow of water is unpredictable. If the best you can do is say, "It will come out of the tap and end up somewhere in the sink," then that's not predictable.

I wasn't trying to be condescending. I am trying to be fair toward your questions because you will not be able to provide an answer toward my questions because they are hard problems. I was also trying to say that I recognize that you are trying to answer these questions.

You recognise that I am trying to answer your questions? Oh, how nice of you, I was ever so hoping to get your recognition!

I can certainly say to you that you have nothing. You can't support your position, and you have several times backflipped on your position. You've got nothing of value to discuss. I haven't backflipped you just haven't been reading my statements well. Remember 503? The difference between our two theories is that one is material and one is immaterial. The former should be described by physics and chemistry, the later should not. So expecting me to be able to describe the soul with physics and chemistry is misguided. A soul is something that can only be apprehended, and it appears to be a metaphysical necessity given that physicalism and materialism fail to account for what is there, and fail to provide the means to account for the acquisition of truth. It turns out that there is a metaphysical thing in this world whose properties are only changed by 2 things in the entire world! You know what that is? Other minds, and meaning. Minds are changed by love, Minds are changed by compassion, and they are changed by hatred, frustration, and anger. Chemicals are produced for these things but it is the meaning that changes the heart of the mind. There is no place for a reductionist account of consciousness in this world.

You haven't backflipped? So at first you say that souls don't need brains:

I did not say souls can't interact with this world.

(Thus it follows that you think souls can interact with the world.)

Then you say they do need brains:

I have been saying that that souls need brains to interact with the world the whole time.

And now you aren't sure:

Q:Can a soul interact with the real world without using a brain? Yes or no. It's a little more complicated than yes or no because you ask me things beyond my capacity to answer. If it's true that demons and ghosts can move objects and interact with someones consciousness and experiences then yes they can do so without a brain. But you cannot have the full human experience without a full brain.

 

[Sanoy]

You'll have to ask a brain surgeon or something. Unfortunately, as I juggle a marriage, a daughter, a job and a side job, I never got the chance to get an advanced education in the function of Human neuronal function...



No, I'm explaining how I use my brain to determine truth, not how I use it to test my brain.



I made several points. Please learn how to use quote tags so you can point your comments directly underneath the parts of my post that you are referring to.



Yes, they are a combination of the two. Since we now (hopefully) have the same idea about my position, let's not waste time trying to figure out what the correct word is. Feel free to make up a random assortment of letters and we'll use that to describe the position.



Nope. The flow of water is unpredictable. If the best you can do is say, "It will come out of the tap and end up somewhere in the sink," then that's not predictable.



You recognise that I am trying to answer your questions? Oh, how nice of you, I was ever so hoping to get your recognition!



You haven't backflipped? So at first you say that souls don't need brains:



(Thus it follows that you think souls can interact with the world.)

Then you say they do need brains:



And now you aren't sure:

1Q Brain surgeons don't know how neurons can give rise to consciousness. You state yourself that you don't know, and I'm sure you have tried googling. So you have answered this question, "I don't know"
2Q I didn't ask you how you use your brain to determine truth. I asked why should I believe that your brain has the capability of acquiring true propositions about states of affairs. What you think your doing via mental process means nothing in regards to your statement being a true proposition when those thoughts are either determined or random.
3Q You made 1 point, described by a whole paragraph. I have no idea what that point about the dots was supposed to represent in regards to how matter, or electrochemical signals can have intentionality.

S1. My questions was what is the mental event under materialism/physicalism. You say that it's a combination of two things and want me to give it a word but if it's physical or chemical it should already have a word, so you should be telling me what it is. If It's physical or material and I have to make up a word for it then what I'm really doing is making up a thing to explain it. So it's clear you have no idea what a mental event is.
S2. You say that the tap water is unpredictable, but how do you know that if your brain is unpredictable in regards to the truth. You would have done better with determinism, now you have just made your brain completely unreliable.

There were times were you were clearly avoiding parts of our conversation. You did it again in S2 by trying to comment on chaos theory rather than the larger problem of your situation. It may frustrate you that I don't use quotes but the reason I don't is that it creates bulk, it isn't a conversation, and it creates a score system where all one has to do is put something under it and they feel they have done something, like you did with S2. And I haven't backflipped, you keep saying that I said souls don't need brains, even when I told you repeatedly I didn't say that. You can't even quote it. And you will do it again too because you are trying to use inference while thinking philosophy is a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Your inference doesn't even begin with a quote of me saying what you claim, and it doesn't follow because you treated philosophy with disdain rather than learning it.

 

[Kylie]

1Q Brain surgeons don't know how neurons can give rise to consciousness. You state yourself that you don't know, and I'm sure you have tried googling. So you have answered this question, "I don't know"
2Q I didn't ask you how you use your brain to determine truth. I asked why should I believe that your brain has the capability of acquiring true propositions about states of affairs. What you think your doing via mental process means nothing in regards to your statement being a true proposition when those thoughts are either determined or random.
3Q You made 1 point, described by a whole paragraph. I have no idea what that point about the dots was supposed to represent in regards to how matter, or electrochemical signals can have intentionality.

S1. My questions was what is the mental event under materialism/physicalism. You say that it's a combination of two things and want me to give it a word but if it's physical or chemical it should already have a word, so you should be telling me what it is. If It's physical or material and I have to make up a word for it then what I'm really doing is making up a thing to explain it. So it's clear you have no idea what a mental event is.
S2. You say that the tap water is unpredictable, but how do you know that if your brain is unpredictable in regards to the truth. You would have done better with determinism, now you have just made your brain completely unreliable.

There were times were you were clearly avoiding parts of our conversation. You did it again in S2 by trying to comment on chaos theory rather than the larger problem of your situation. It may frustrate you that I don't use quotes but the reason I don't is that it creates bulk, it isn't a conversation, and it creates a score system where all one has to do is put something under it and they feel they have done something, like you did with S2. And I haven't backflipped, you keep saying that I said souls don't need brains, even when I told you repeatedly I didn't say that. You can't even quote it. And you will do it again too because you are trying to use inference while thinking philosophy is a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Your inference doesn't even begin with a quote of me saying what you claim, and it doesn't follow because you treated philosophy with disdain rather than learning it.

Seems like all I do is answer your questions, post after post. I'm done. Time for you to answer mine.

Also, I don't care about your reasons for not using quotes. Your replies are very difficult to figure out. I'm not going to bother if your replies aren't clear.

 

[Sanoy]

Seems like all I do is answer your questions, post after post. I'm done. Time for you to answer mine.

Also, I don't care about your reasons for not using quotes. Your replies are very difficult to figure out. I'm not going to bother if your replies aren't clear.

I think you confuse the action of typing a reply with actually answering the question. If you had actually answered it I would have heard three statements of "I don't know" from you. Instead I only heard one. Anyone can make a reply, it takes something else entirely to make a dutiful response.

Any explanation for S2? Seems like a pretty self destructive position to remain in. I hope you will continue to think about this even after you leave. God made you for so much more. But you tear off every limb in self destruction to avoid Him who would take you from this half existence to a full one.

 

[Kylie]

I think you confuse the action of typing a reply with actually answering the question. If you had actually answered it I would have heard three statements of "I don't know" from you. Instead I only heard one. Anyone can make a reply, it takes something else entirely to make a dutiful response.

Any explanation for S2? Seems like a pretty self destructive position to remain in. I hope you will continue to think about this even after you leave. God made you for so much more. But you tear off every limb in self destruction to avoid Him who would take you from this half existence to a full one.

Once again you bug me and expect me to jump through your hoops, yet you do nothing for me. Yawn. It's getting tired.

I've answered your questions. You don't get to whinge about it because I didn't give you the answers you wanted me to give you.

And yet you're incapable of answering my one single question that needs only a yes or a no...

 

[Sanoy]

Once again you bug me and expect me to jump through your hoops, yet you do nothing for me. Yawn. It's getting tired.

I've answered your questions. You don't get to whinge about it because I didn't give you the answers you wanted me to give you.

And yet you're incapable of answering my one single question that needs only a yes or a no...

You have replied, that is different from answering questions. In your replies you have cut so much away from yourself in fear of God that your thoughts are left explained as neuronal chatter in chaos theory. I hope that when this conversation ends you will be haunted into self reflection over the things you have said here, because God has a life and a destiny for you Kylie.

It is absurd to demand someone answer a yes or no question that he doesn't know. I have told you that that a soul can interact with a brain, which is part of the world. I don't know what else they can interact with and to what extent.

 

[Kylie]

You have replied, that is different from answering questions.

No, I suspect you just refuse to accept my answers because you disagree with my position, and you reject any answer that stems from a position you disagree with.

In your replies you have cut so much away from yourself in fear of God that your thoughts are left explained as neuronal chatter in chaos theory.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I have no more fear of God than I do Voldemort or Darth Vader.

Seriously, what is it with believers thinking that atheists secretly think God is real?

I hope that when this conversation ends you will be haunted into self reflection over the things you have said here, because God has a life and a destiny for you Kylie.

I don't need that kind of arrogance. Take the preaching elsewhere.

It is absurd to demand someone answer a yes or no question that he doesn't know. I have told you that that a soul can interact with a brain, which is part of the world. I don't know what else they can interact with and to what extent.

So if you don't know, why were you so confidently telling me about the connection between souls and brains? Why do you come and start talking about something that you know virtually nothing about? It leads me to think that if you are going to talk about one subject you know virtually nothing about, perhaps you are doing the same thing with other subjects as well. You have lost a great deal of credibility.

 

[Sanoy]

No, I suspect you just refuse to accept my answers because you disagree with my position, and you reject any answer that stems from a position you disagree with.



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I have no more fear of God than I do Voldemort or Darth Vader.

Seriously, what is it with believers thinking that atheists secretly think God is real?



I don't need that kind of arrogance. Take the preaching elsewhere.



So if you don't know, why were you so confidently telling me about the connection between souls and brains? Why do you come and start talking about something that you know virtually nothing about? It leads me to think that if you are going to talk about one subject you know virtually nothing about, perhaps you are doing the same thing with other subjects as well. You have lost a great deal of credibility.

Your answers don't answer the questions asked. And how could they when these are hard problems.

If I tell you God is on your left arm you'll tear it off. If I say God is on your right arm you'll tear it off. You have already torn off all rationality from your mind just because I said God was there. Then as if determinism wasn't far enough you fled so far as to be completely random. I call it fear, you can call it something else, but don't call it genuine pursuit of the truth because you just ended your capability for that.

You think I come here and endure the hate, mockery, and despicable attitude of some of the Athiests here out of arrogance? No, I come to this forum because people here are dying, and I endure their caustic behavior because I love them.

I am confident souls interact with brains. My lack of knowledge on whether a ghost can shove a glass off the table isn't needed for an ontological explanation of consciousness.

 

[Kylie]

If I tell you God is on your left arm you'll tear it off. If I say God is on your right arm you'll tear it off. You have already torn off all rationality from your mind just because I said God was there. Then as if determinism wasn't far enough you fled so far as to be completely random. I call it fear, you can call it something else, but don't call it genuine pursuit of the truth because you just ended your capability for that.

And of course, you know what I am thinking better than I do. There's that arrogance again.

You think I come here and endure the hate, mockery, and despicable attitude of some of the Athiests here out of arrogance? No, I come to this forum because people here are dying, and I endure their caustic behavior because I love them.

Pressing your beliefs onto others because you are convinced that you are right and you can't imagine how what worked for you couldn't also work for everyone is not love. It's you ignoring that other people are different and have different views. If you can't respect those people enough to understand that they may not want you to push your beliefs onto them, why should they be bothered with what you have to say?

I am confident souls interact with brains. My lack of knowledge on whether a ghost can shove a glass off the table isn't needed for an ontological explanation of consciousness.

But you're just guessing. If you had any actual evidence for what you say, you'd have presented it. I find your speculation to be underwhelming.