Mind

[Mr Strawberry]

The soul resides in the heart.

If the heart is removed ... my guess is that the soul would migrate to the brain until a new heart is installed.

If a person dies on the operating table, then of course, the soul would be released.

Interestingly, the Zulus used to believe something similar, which is why they used to slit open the stomachs of foes they had killed in battle, often disembowelling them in the process so as to release their souls. They regarded it as proper and kind act. This, unsurprisingly, caused no little outrage in the Anglo-Zulu war of 1879, when the British objected to the mutilation of their dead, and the Zulus were equally outraged that fallen warriors they had left on the battlefield were buried without having their stomachs slit open and thus without their spirits being allowed to leave their bodies.

 

[AV1611VET]

Interestingly, the Zulus used to believe something similar, which is why they used to slit open the stomachs of foes they had killed in battle, often disembowelling them in the process so as to release their souls. They regarded it as proper and kind act. This, unsurprisingly, caused no little outrage in the Anglo-Zulu war of 1879, when the British objected to the mutilation of their dead, and the Zulus were equally outraged that fallen warriors they had left on the battlefield were buried without having their stomachs slit open and thus without their spirits being allowed to leave their bodies.

I was going to mention that the soul may migrate to the stomach, but decided against it.

In any event, I wasn't aware the Zulu did heart transplants.

So what you're saying is:

The Zulu, while performing heart transplants, and assuming the soul migrated into the stomach, slit their stomachs open to release their souls?

Or, as I suspect, are you just being facetious?

 

[Kylie]

The soul resides in the heart.

If the heart is removed ... my guess is that the soul would migrate to the brain until a new heart is installed.

If a person dies on the operating table, then of course, the soul would be released.

I don't think tripartitism addresses the issue of heart transplants.

How would that work? If I have a file on my USB drive, it doesn't return to my computer's hard drive when I pull it out. Why would it do that in the case of a heart being removed?

And what if the person has their head chopped off, but their body remains alive on a life support machine that sends signals to the heart to keep pumping, the lungs to keep breathing, etc (assuming the technology was possible). Would the soul still be in the heart then?

And finally, if the brain is capable of hosting the soul, then why doesn't it just do it the whole time?

 

[Kylie]

I was going to mention that the soul may migrate to the stomach, but decided against it.

In any event, I wasn't aware the Zulu did heart transplants.

So what you're saying is:

The Zulu, while performing heart transplants, and assuming the soul migrated into the stomach, slit their stomachs open to release their souls?

Or, as I suspect, are you just being facetious?

I think I know what you are doing. The brain releases chemicals that makes the heart beat faster and the tummy get all a-twitter during certain emotional states. You look at these and conclude that the soul must be in the body part that has the particular feeling, because you (somehow) can't conceive that one part of the body can influence how another part feels.

 

[AV1611VET]

How would that work? If I have a file on my USB drive, it doesn't return to my computer's hard drive when I pull it out. Why would it do that in the case of a heart being removed?

And what if the person has their head chopped off, but their body remains alive on a life support machine that sends signals to the heart to keep pumping, the lungs to keep breathing, etc (assuming the technology was possible). Would the soul still be in the heart then?

And finally, if the brain is capable of hosting the soul, then why doesn't it just do it the whole time?

Oh, please.

Let's simplify this, okay?

God handles the details.

How's that?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think I know what you are doing. The brain releases chemicals that makes the heart beat faster and the tummy get all a-twitter during certain emotional states. You look at these and conclude that the soul must be in the body part that has the particular feeling, because you (somehow) can't conceive that one part of the body can influence how another part feels.

Is that what is taught in Tripartism 101 in your neck of the woods?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I was going to mention that the soul may migrate to the stomach, but decided against it.

In any event, I wasn't aware the Zulu did heart transplants.

So what you're saying is:

The Zulu, while performing heart transplants, and assuming the soul migrated into the stomach, slit their stomachs open to release their souls?

Or, as I suspect, are you just being facetious?

Just an interesting titbit, that's all.

 

[Kylie]

Oh, please.

Let's simplify this, okay?

God handles the details.

How's that?

Magic. Gotcha.

God must be awfully busy handling all these details. Makes me wonder why he didn't just design a more effective system in the first place.

 

[Kylie]

Is that what is taught in Tripartism 101 in your neck of the woods?

It's how reality works in my neck of the woods, m'bucko.

 

[Davian]

Oh, please.

Let's simplify this, okay?

God handles the details.

How's that?

 

[Davian]

Welcome to the wonderful world of debate where burning strawmen is as common as dirt.

You certainly have burnt through your own share of strawmen.

Basing their opinions on a *lack of experience* is hardly much of argument, but alas, that's ultimately where most atheists begin. It's akin to the argument that if they personally have never seen a kangaroo, such an animal must be an illusion of every 'believers' mind.

Not at all. It's akin to the argument that if they have never seen a sfquidsuf, and the person reporting the experience cannot define what they are talking about, and lacks any independent verification for the veracity of their report, and from all objective measure it appears to be nothing from outside their imagination, even if a million people agree to refer to this "thing" as a "sfquidsuf", it still does not pull it out of the realm of the imaginary.

The thing is, humans throughout the whole of recorded human history *have* been able to "replicate" this process, but it takes effort, and it takes some amount of 'faith' to begin the process.

But it is a dud in the lab, is it not? Scientists poke at the brain and replicate such experiences, showing that the brain is capable of these experiences internally. Claim of these effects being causes by deities, orbiting alien craft, electrical universes, or "sfquidsuf" still fail in the lab.

<rant, rant, rant>

 

[Davian]

I already explained my understanding of it. It's your fault if you choose not to accept it.

It's my fault that I chose not to to accept your unevidenced, untestable, unfalsifiable assumptions?

True. Call me sceptical.

I can't exactly show you my own personal religious experiences. That's why they're called "personal" religious experiences. They provide proof for me. I don't expect them to convince anyone else who has not personally experienced them.

Then why offer them as evidence to others? Again, if you feel that what you experience is more than an illusion, then you will need to do more than just say so.

The ones I have experienced are consistent with each other, as well as those of other Christians I know.

If there is one "religious experience" that is not consistent with another, they are all suspect.

Again, I don't expect them to convince you based on what happened to me. It's something you would need to experience for yourself.

Still irrelevant. Even if I were to experience what you are describing, and I found it to be convincing, it would still fail to establish it as not being an illusion.

I was talking about Biblical interpretation.

As I was. My interpretation is based on observation, evidence, and parsimony. Yours?

 

[Michael]

To substantiate that charge you would first need to provide a robust, demonstrable characterization of the thing in question.

Deepak Chopra: Can Science Explain the Soul?

The theory put forth by Penrose looks the most promising to me.

Why would I need to experience it?

Why would you need to ride a bicycle to understand how it feels and what it's like?

And, I am not claiming that you have experienced an illusion. If you feel that it is more than an illusion, then you will need to do more than just say so.

The basic flaw in your argument is if it were an "illusion", it wouldn't necessarily be likely to be experienced by others. If you check your history books however, you'll find that humans throughout the whole of recorded human history have reported such experiences.

I do not know what you mean by "spiritual". If these experiences cannot be independently verified,

In the sense that we're all going to leave these forms sooner or later, they absolutely *will be* independently verified over time.

The question is, are we clever enough from this side of the process (living in form) to figure out some sort of empirical connection between "soul" and chemical forms. I've looked a bit at Penrose's proposal, but I've yet to think of any logical way to fully test the idea using today's current technologies. You'd ultimately need some type of real time MRI gear that could look at the subatomic spectrum, to see individual EM field connections throughout any entire room, and even then, you'd still need God's "permission".

My interpretation is based on observation, evidence, and parsimony. Yours?

In my experience, that term "parsimony" is a buzzword to hide all of your own personal subjective slants and interpretations.

 

[Michael]

You certainly have burnt through your own share of strawmen.

Well, when you put it that way....

I suppose if you lit up every strawman I've used in online debate over the past decade or so all at once, it probably would result in rather roaring bonfire. Ok, you got me on that one.

Not at all. It's akin to the argument that if they have never seen a sfquidsuf, and the person reporting the experience cannot define what they are talking about, and lacks any independent verification for the veracity of their report, and from all objective measure it appears to be nothing from outside their imagination, even if a million people agree to refer to this "thing" as a "sfquidsuf", it still does not pull it out of the realm of the imaginary.

As Jesus said, and Penrose's theory would suggest, if there is a "soul", the kingdom of heaven is found within. That connection between humans and what humans call God, has been going on over thousands of years of recorded human history.

Even based on Penrose's theory the "physical connection" between soul and form, would take place in the seat of the brain cavity. It "could" and probably does IMO extend throughout the entire physical form, but all the "action" in terms of thought and feelings would be seated inside the brain of the organism.

But it is a dud in the lab, is it not? Scientists poke at the brain and replicate such experiences, showing that the brain is capable of these experiences internally. Claim of these effects being causes by deities, orbiting alien craft, electrical universes, or "sfquidsuf" still fail in the lab.

Um, I respectfully suggest you take a gander at Penrose's theory. The fact you can physically poke, and chemically alter the brain and generate various actions and effects, does *not* rule out the possibility of a connection between 'soul' and form. All you're doing by tinkering with the brain chemistry is "interfering" with that connection. You could have the same effect with a bullet to the head as well. So what? That certainly doesn't rule out anything. Your premise is flawed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Makes me wonder why he didn't just design a more effective system in the first place.

He did, but it got ruined.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's how reality works in my neck of the woods, m'bucko.

Reality teaches Tripartitism 101?

Interesting.

No wonder you don't understand.

 

[AV1611VET]

You betcha!

That's me trump card.

(Along with: "God works in mysterious ways.")

That'll shut any scientific methodist up and make them immediately go to ridicule mode.

Claiming "God did it" hardens hearts.

 

[Michael]

Interestingly, the Zulus used to believe something similar, which is why they used to slit open the stomachs of foes they had killed in battle, often disembowelling them in the process so as to release their souls. They regarded it as proper and kind act. This, unsurprisingly, caused no little outrage in the Anglo-Zulu war of 1879, when the British objected to the mutilation of their dead, and the Zulus were equally outraged that fallen warriors they had left on the battlefield were buried without having their stomachs slit open and thus without their spirits being allowed to leave their bodies.

I did not know that interesting bit of rather gory trivia.

 

[Kylie]

You betcha!

That's me trump card.

(Along with: "God works in mysterious ways.")

That'll shut any scientific methodist up and make them immediately go to ridicule mode.

Claiming "God did it" hardens hearts.

Shame it doesn't actually TELL us anything, isn't it?

Reality teaches Tripartitism 101?

Interesting.

No wonder you don't understand.

No, reality teaches me how the body works, and why we get fluttering in our hearts and tummies sometimes.

If you insist on making unsupported claims that have zero evidence, no wonder YOU don't understand.

 

[Davian]

You betcha!

That's me trump card.

(Along with: "God works in mysterious ways.")

It's a trump card as much as pulling out a Monopoly boardgame "Get out of jail free" card will be taken seriously down at your local police station.

That'll shut any scientific methodist up and make them immediately go to ridicule mode.

You invite ridicule, then complain about it.

Claiming "God did it" hardens hearts.

On the contrary, the humorous nature of your posts warm my cockles.