[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29892465]I think I realize what the problem is. I'm using the word "soul" as a synonym for consciousness, or what separates us from being walking chemical machines, collecting input and generating output. People think I'm using it as the religious definition of soul, but I'm not.[/QUOTE]
This really doesn't change how full of shit you are. I'm not attacking a religious definition of a soul, if I were, i'd just be a stupid anti-theist. No, I full well disagree with you that we are ANYTHING but chemical computers because all science has pointed to that. I think life as it is fucking miraculous to be here, but that doesn't mean I chalk it up to something I've NO EVIDENCE OF.
[QUOTE]Then why do some people think, based on observations and other stuff, that we are in fact that?[/QUOTE]
You come to that conclusion by observing others, not by observing yourself.
This argument is pointless anyways. I can't prove to you that this exists scientifically, because the net result is exactly the same. An unconscious "human" could be programmed to act as if they had a consciousness, so there's no scientific way to prove whether or not they have one. Only they can know for sure. If you can't recognize it yourself, and I can't make you recognize it, then we're not going to get anywhere.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29892567]You come to that conclusion by observing others, not by observing yourself.
This argument is pointless anyways. I can't prove to you that this exists scientifically, because the net result is exactly the same. An unconscious "human" could be programmed to act as if they had a consciousness, so there's no scientific way to prove whether or not they have one. Only they can know for sure. If you can't recognize it yourself, and I can't make you recognize it, then we're not going to get anywhere.[/QUOTE]
So basically, you just know you're right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, but over such a minor issue and an incredibly stupid "point" is just not capable of getting it.
Yeah, you know, I tell people I'm Jesus, they just don't believe me.... So I know your pain.
[Quote]No, I full well disagree with you that we are ANYTHING but chemical computers because all science has pointed to that.[/QUOTE]
And here is our underlying problem: the adamant disbelief in anything that can not be scientifically proven. It amazes me how many people don't understand that science is limited. This is a problem with your world-view, and there's no way I'm going to overcome it, so I'm just going to end this argument. You can go ahead and continue to think I'm full of shit, and I'll go ahead and think that you're extremely closed-minded.
[QUOTE=Jayhawker30;29891484]The opposition isn't nearly as unfounded as you might think.[/QUOTE]
Unfounded: Lacking a sound basis or having no foundation or basis in fact, where "fact" is a thing which has been done, demonstrated, or can be demonstrated objectively and indisputably.
Arguments for an afterlife lack a sound basis (entirely consist of speculation, appeal to consequences, reification and negative proof) with no foundation in any demonstrable objective fact and are widely disputed.
So, no, actually, by definition belief in an afterlife is [i]entirely[/i] unfounded. You're not allowed to just use words with specific meanings to say "it sounds alright to me."
Also, at an argumentative level, if someone can act the same missing that little piece you're claiming is there, is that piece really there? If that part isn't vital to functionality, then is it there? is it a soul? does the soul do what you're claiming? I mean, I already ran through this same sentence before I'm sure, just to have you ignore it.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29892465]I think I realize what the problem is. I'm using the word "soul" as a synonym for consciousness, or what separates us from being walking chemical machines, collecting input and generating output. People think I'm using it as the religious definition of soul, but I'm not.[/QUOTE]
I like some soul. :smug:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-5c5o85SGo[/media]
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29892677]And here is our underlying problem: the adamant disbelief in anything that can not be scientifically proven. It amazes me how many people don't understand that science is limited.[/QUOTE]
Show me how it's limited.
It amazes me the ridiculous jumps in logic faith makes people take.
[QUOTE=Jayhawker30;29891484]The opposition isn't nearly as unfounded as you might think.[/QUOTE]
Founded with what?
[editline]17th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29892678]Unfounded: Lacking a sound basis or having no foundation or basis in fact, where "fact" is a thing which has been done, demonstrated, or can be demonstrated objectively and indisputably.
Arguments for an afterlife lack a sound basis (entirely consist of speculation, appeal to consequences, reification and negative proof) with no foundation in any demonstrable objective fact and are widely disputed.
So, no, actually, by definition belief in an afterlife is [i]entirely[/i] unfounded. You're not allowed to just use words with specific meanings to say "it sounds alright to me."[/QUOTE]
Very well put.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29892677]And here is our underlying problem: the adamant disbelief in anything that can not be scientifically proven. It amazes me how many people don't understand that science is limited.[/QUOTE]
"I can't show you this thing exists, but you should believe me that it does."
The common rebuttal is "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Otherwise, again, we'd be worrying about every child who claimed he had an invisible dragon friend that "you just can't see because he only likes me."
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29892677]And here is our underlying problem: the adamant disbelief in anything that can not be scientifically proven. It amazes me how many people don't understand that science is limited. This is a problem with your world-view, and there's no way I'm going to overcome it, so I'm just going to end this argument. You can go ahead and continue to think I'm full of shit, and I'll go ahead and think that you're extremely closed-minded.[/QUOTE]
I'm close minded for needing a form of proof?
Yeah, that's how that works...
[editline]17th May 2011[/editline]
Again. Key_in_skillee
[b]Read this.
There is a pink elephant behind you. Right now. If you turn to look he will move silently out of your vision. If you scan for him with heat detectors, you will find he's heatless. If you look for him with your eyes, you'll see he's invisible. If you look for him with your fingers, you'll find he is immaterial to the touch, and feels no different than the air. Though you can not see him this elephant has followed you your whole life. Prove me wrong[/b]
If you really don't see the comparison between this, and your argument, you're blinded by your own faith. If i'm close minded(hey, I'm giving you a chance, I just want a little bit of proof to base a belief system off of) then you're close minded to a point I can't even express.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29892757]I'm close minded for needing a form of proof?
Yeah, that's how that works...
[editline]17th May 2011[/editline]
Again. Key_in_skillee
[b]Read this.
There is a pink elephant behind you. Right now. If you turn to look he will move silently out of your vision. If you scan for him with heat detectors, you will find he's heatless. If you look for him with your eyes, you'll see he's invisible. If you look for him with your fingers, you'll find he is immaterial to the touch, and feels no different than the air. Though you can not see him this elephant has followed you your whole life. Prove me wrong[/b][/QUOTE]
Consciousness isn't a physical thing. Of course if you try to claim a physical thing exists when there's no way of observing it it's going to seem a lot more ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29892974]Consciousness isn't a physical thing. Of course if you try to claim a physical thing exists when there's no way of observing it it's going to seem a lot more ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
But you're claiming that. If it exists in this universe, it has a form, does it not? To exist, it must have a form, if it has a form, SOMETHING should some how be able to detect it at some level, but what you're saying is
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29892752]"I can't show you this thing exists, but you should believe me that it does."[/QUOTE]
I don't know why I imagined you could make the connection between two imaginary things(one you believe is real with all your heart) and another... both being imaginary based on the same principles of no proof and logically requiring a form to exist.
Consciousness is something that only exists in one's own reality, not in consensus reality.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29892974]Consciousness isn't a physical thing. Of course if you try to claim a physical thing exists when there's no way of observing it it's going to seem a lot more ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
hmm... your arguement is a bit of a dead end.
Yep. Full of shit.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29893157]Consciousness is something that only exists in one's own reality, not in consensus reality.[/QUOTE]
Yeah... when someone bangs there head, they can be unconscious. It's a medical fact.
[QUOTE=AK'z;29893181]Yeah... when someone bangs there head, they can be unconscious. It's a medical fact.[/QUOTE]
No one is arguing about that definition of consciousness (being awake).
Why, if we function all the same without this little bit you call a soul, because you said we do, is it necessary to even have that? How do we have that? I just run into a hundred logical problems when I think "All people naturally have a soul, even if it's invisible and carries no function". I'd rather just leave it out if it only complicates things needlessly.
Simpler is always better.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29893221]No one is arguing about that definition of consciousness (being awake).[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure sleeping is the complete loss of consciousness. There would be more brain activity as compared to the other.
Are you sure you know what you're arguing for?
So consciousness is not a physical thing, huh? Then when a person is whacked in the head and they end up with brain damage, it's not real, right? What about Down's syndrome? Having a stroke and part of your brain getting all fucked up? That would not happen if consciousness was not dependant on the brain.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;29893308]So consciousness is not a physical thing, huh? Then when a person is whacked in the head and they end up with brain damage, it's not real, right? What about Down's syndrome? Having a stroke and part of your brain getting all fucked up? That would not happen if consciousness was not dependant on the brain.[/QUOTE]
Already brought up the brain damage argument. He ignored it in classic style.
OK, here's something. Prove to me that you dream.
Why is he talking about soul? :raise:
[editline]17th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29893339]OK, here's something. Prove to me that you dream.[/QUOTE]
I remember them and I am beginning to dream every night. I see no point of that.
Sometimes I dream within a 10 minute snooze. It's fact because everyone with a human brain dreams.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29893339]OK, here's something. Prove to me that you dream.[/QUOTE]
Uhm, we can record people having dreams, we can record the brain waves, the signals sent around the brain, we can monitor rapid eye movement. Does this mean we can see a dream? No. But we KNOW we dream.
So are you like, 12 with no knowledge of the scientific world?
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;29893308]So consciousness is not a physical thing, huh? Then when a person is whacked in the head and they end up with brain damage, it's not real, right? What about Down's syndrome? Having a stroke and part of your brain getting all fucked up? That would not happen if consciousness was not dependant on the brain.[/QUOTE]
I'm not arguing for an afterlife anymore, so I'm not arguing that consciousness isn't dependent on the brain. Rest assured I've already thought about that, it's one of the bigger holes in the theory of an afterlife.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29893339]OK, here's something. Prove to me that you dream.[/QUOTE]
prove to me that girls poop
I mean, REM sleep cycles aren't a myth, they're scientifically fucking proven...
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29893392]I'm not arguing for an afterlife anymore, so I'm not arguing that consciousness isn't dependent on the brain. Rest assured I've already thought about that, it's one of the bigger holes in the theory of an afterlife.[/QUOTE]
the afterlife isn't even a hypothesis let alone a theory
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29893392]I'm not arguing for an afterlife anymore, so I'm not arguing that consciousness isn't dependent on the brain. Rest assured I've already thought about that, it's one of the bigger holes in the theory of an afterlife.[/QUOTE]
Why did you ask me to prove that I dream?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.