"If soul doesnt exist, it dont matter..."

[GrimKingGrim]

soul - particles of light we have not yet learned to detect contained inside our blood/DNA.

Say what? I have photons in my blood? I don't have photons in my blood.

 

[dms1972]

soul - particles of light we have not yet learned to detect contained inside our blood/DNA.
body - physical matter, time, space, everything we can detect and measure.

When we die the particles of light inside our blood/DNA are able to transverse among the other particles of light already all around us, it is our physical body containing our blood, that stops our soul from interacting with the light.

Grammatically I still go with CS Lewis. The main thing is that whether I can explain or not I won't cease to be a soul. I'm content for it to be somewhat mysterious or to understand it related to "being" or "person".

 

[dms1972]

\/\/\/\/\/\/

 

[dms1972]

Say what? I have photons in my blood? I don't have photons in my blood.

Shine a torch through your finger-tip

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Shine a torch through your finger-tip

Directions unclear.

 

[TillICollapse]

Shine a torch through your finger-tip

Huh ?

From what I remember reading (article published a couple years ago), bioluminescence in humans has nothing to do with "blood" specifically, rather it's related to metabolism, and it is so dim that it's not visible by the naked eye. So shining a flashlight through your finger-tip is arguably going to show photons that come from the flashlight lol, not your fingertip. No ?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Huh ?

From what I remember reading (article published a couple years ago), bioluminescence in humans has nothing to do with "blood" specifically, rather it's related to metabolism, and it is so dim that it's not visible by the naked eye. So shining a flashlight through your finger-tip is arguably going to show photons that come from the flashlight lol, not your fingertip. No ?

I honestly thought this was common sense.

 

[TillICollapse]

I honestly thought this was common sense.

Remember there are those who still believe the earth is flat ...

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Remember there are those who still believe the earth is flat ...

And some who still believe in the Geocentric universe

 

[Davian]

Definitions of cosciousness belong to or derive from metaphysics ultimately. I think so anyway.

Why? Because of your religious presuppositions?

There are correlates to consciousness, like brain activity, and correlates to brain activity, like consciousness. But it is neather testable not falsifiable that brain acivity is identical to consciousness.

I would not claim that brain activity is identical to "consciousness", particularly in that I am still not sure what you mean by that term.

Of course you have identiy theorists, but they belong to philosophy, not to science. Many contemporary philosophers say that it is in fact irreducible.
...

That they say it is a fact does not make it fact.

We can pick this back up if you decide to return to this thread.

 

[TillICollapse]

And some who still believe in the Geocentric universe

And the Egocentric lol

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Originally Posted by GrowingSmaller

Definitions of cosciousness belong to or derive from metaphysics ultimately. I think so anyway.

Why? Because of your religious presuppositions?

No because of the access to consiocusness, its pre scientific. Its one of our axiokms of experience if you like, or a fiundamental disposition at the foundations of knowledge. This is true for the atheist and the theist a like.

Originally Posted by GrowingSmaller

There are correlates to consciousness, like brain activity, and correlates to brain activity, like consciousness. But it is neather testable not falsifiable that brain acivity is identical to consciousness.
​

I would not claim that brain activity is identical to "consciousness", particularly in that I am still not sure what you mean by that term.

Consciousness, awareness, the property or condistion of knowing especially through sensory modalities (when we first learn the term).

Originally Posted by GrowingSmaller

Of course you have identiy theorists, but they belong to philosophy, not to science. Many contemporary philosophers say that it is in fact irreducible.
...
​

That they say it is a fact does not make it fact.

We can pick this back up if you decide to return to this thread.

Ok it may be reducible in theory at least, but, but, returning to the original idea of the OP. The soul concept A] forms a part of peoples identity, so not caring about the soul enlails not caring about them. And B] connotes in part "mind" and as such (because mental life is intrinsically care about worthy) it matters.

So not caring about the soul (not giving a damn) is in part anti humanistic, even from a secular perspective.

Its like saying (under one interpretation) "I dont care about you, because your mental self model is inaccurate."

OR "You are a soul? Sorry, you dont exist."

Thats the general argument anyway....

 

[Davian]

No because of the access to consiocusness, its pre scientific. Its one of our axiokms of experience if you like, or a fiundamental disposition at the foundations of knowledge. This is true for the atheist and the theist a like.

Saying that something is not scientific simply begs the question, by what methodology do you know that?

Consciousness, awareness, the property or condistion of knowing especially through sensory modalities (when we first learn the term).



Ok it may be reducible in theory at least, but, but, returning to the original idea of the OP. The soul concept A] forms a part of peoples identity, so not caring about the soul enlails not caring about them. And B] connotes in part "mind" and as such (because mental life is intrinsically care about worthy) it matters.

So not caring about the soul (not giving a damn) is in part anti humanistic, even from a secular perspective.

I do not see why. A "soul" may be seen as as a synonymous term for "mind", as an emergent property of a healthy brain. That still does not make it a mystical, indestructible, entropy-defying platform on which to build religious beliefs.

Its like saying (under one interpretation) "I dont care about you, because your mental self model is inaccurate."

OR "You are a soul? Sorry, you dont exist."

Thats the general argument anyway....

No by any interpretation that I am aware of.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Saying that something is not scientific simply begs the question, by what methodology do you know that?

History, people talked of consciousness long before the culture of science developed. Youre not going to argue we discovered consciousness when we discovered the brain are you?

I do not see why. A "soul" may be seen as as a synonymous term for "mind", as an emergent property of a healthy brain. That still does not make it a mystical, indestructible, entropy-defying platform on which to build religious beliefs.

Of course the soul may not exist, thats not the point.


One of the reasons I posted is because of the gothic attitude, "as far as I am concerned I can go to hell" - and the implicit anti moralism of the tone of argument. This sems to be reactionary but a non sequitir., philosophically. Whether you like black eye liner or not.


Maybe there is no soul, good. But the web of beliefs and cultural practices surrounding soul-belief (sometimes anyway) are actually worth caring about. For instance the Roman catholic works of mercy - feeding the poor, caring to the sick, educating the ignorant etc.

And peoles self esteem, sense of dignity, reasoning about purpose in life too.


Although there may be actually no soul and no God, that doesnt mean the "saints" were not worthy of some due respect, even from a secular perspective. Because such behaviors are related to soul belief, then attacking the soul, especially in a calous and trivialising manner, is to implicitally attack those practices too. This need not be intended, just as you may not intend to thing of Pavlovs dog if I say "bell".

Souls do matter, just as do peoples God concepts - they motivate a lot of personal and cultural acticvity, and are sometimes extremely consequentail.

Things matter if they are important, and are important if they are significantly consequential in peoples lives. IMO at least. The fact that when I was homeless, when I was sick religious people clothed and fed me, saw "christ" in me etc, may be based on a flawed ontology... but it still means a lot to me to have been treated so danm well.

Maybe I ought to have said "soul concepts matter" but its too late now. They matter in a sense other than being "ontologically errornous" too.

 

[contratodo]

How do you know this?

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

Revelation 10:1-2, 7.

 

[contratodo]

He doesn't. It makes me cringe when fundamentalists try to give religion a pseudo-scientific basis. It doesn't need it. It can stand on its own two feet.

I'm not giving religion anything,neither was i talking about religion.
I'm talking about my God who is real, and the nature of the spiritual realm, that is also real, science can see real things, because science also is real.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

Revelation 10:1-2, 7.

Again, to stave off potential skeptics in an era where just about anything was attributed to a god, it was smart in realizing how farfetched these claims were that one singular god was able to do what multiple gods were. So in order to stave off skepticism it was written that "it is how it is, deal with it." Of course this type of logic gets flogged in today's standards which is why nobody in this day and age writes like this. It's bad writing and clearly political.

 

[bhsmte]

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

Revelation 10:1-2, 7.

Oh, ok.

I am not big on referring on scripture to verify reality, but if it works for you, no problem.

 

[contratodo]

If you can accept what Steven Hawking concludes about the universe, then you can accept what the Bible says about God.

You can see the light all around you, right? You know that there are particles of light we can not see, right? And also that they can not make anything go faster than 99.9% the speed of light, therefore, as Romans 1:20 states, it is evident in nature/science that there is a spiritual realm and therefore most likely a God in that realm, who has created the physical realm we are in.

 

[bhsmte]

If you can accept what Steven Hawking concludes about the universe, then you can accept what the Bible says about God.

You can see the light all around you, right? You know that there are particles of light we can not see, right? And also that they can not make anything go faster than 99.9% the speed of light, therefore, as Romans 1:20 states, it is evident in nature/science that there is a spiritual realm and therefore most likely a God in that realm, who has created the physical realm we are in.

I don't think so.