Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Which is the Soul, Exists??

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 16, 2013, 10:47:02 PM
You are right about all that. I'll think more about identity and 3.

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 20, 2013, 07:50:08 PM
Quote
Let me ask you:  how are chemicals summoned in the brain when not directly imbibing them?

They're produced by various glands/organs; however if you're asking what directs the production/amount of chemicals under various circumstances, as far as I know that's still a murky area for research. Perhaps most notably for depression - (does depression cause the release of certain chemicals, or is it a result of certain chemicals already present in the brain?).

However, this still falls under the realm of chemicals relating to behavior of the brain and doesn't provide any grounds for inserting the notion of a "soul".

Quote
Eating magic mushrooms and tripping balls is not an explanation for the normal processes of a brain that is not under the influence!

It is proof that the human consciousness is dependent on chemical interactions.

Quote
In fact you explain the exact problem with chemicals/impulses.  If chemicals are deciding everything for me...don't blame me, blame my chemicals.  My chemicals lord over me and I just follow orders.  I was the victim of my chemicals!

False dichotomy: your brain (and it various chemicals/impulses) is what produces your notion of yourself.

Causality between neurochemistry and consciousness has never been proven. The mind is not phenominal therefore, the results of alterations in neurochemistry are entirely subjective. Experimentation on nonempirical "objects" is not science.

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 20, 2013, 09:38:57 PM
The most ugly philosophy is that which is secretly religious.
Liberalism is moral syphilis.

- Jonathan Bowden

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 20, 2013, 10:15:08 PM
I just wonder how exactly organs would secrete chemicals in the brain based on something like the information gathered from one's surroundings.  Your turn the corner and see danger, a chemical is sent to the brain that says *run away,* all fair enough, but that is not exactly like hitting the cue ball with the pool cue that in turn hits the 8 ball.  There is clearly something at play that is not material/physical.
His Majesty at the Swamp / Black Arts Lead to Everlasting Sins / Diabolical Fullmoon Mysticism / Oath of Black Blood / Privilege of Evil / Dawn of Possession / In Battle There is No Law / Thousand Swords / To Mega Therion

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 20, 2013, 11:48:38 PM
Recognizing that science is, at present, unable to fully explain all natural processes in the brain does absolutely nothing to lead to the notion that there is any "non-material" process which conveniently [and unexplainably] interacts with the "material".

This is the "God of the gaps" method of thought in action.
Liberalism is moral syphilis.

- Jonathan Bowden

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 21, 2013, 12:13:28 AM
Again, I say: What Does It Matter?
Mystery rocks!
Squawk!

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 21, 2013, 01:01:40 AM
The soul... to me, I am the soul. The soul is the universal of existence. I am a soul which is to say I am an experiencing being, and I have a near body (that which I can move myself) and a far body (which I can observe but not move myself). I think that an electron has a soul too, and so does the universe, and so does an atom or a molecule or a protein or a bacteria or an ant or a mouse or a rock or a star. Soul experiences, body is experienced.

As for chemicals,, I sometimes consider myself a Utilitarian, which to me means, there is existence which is to be favoured over other existences, or perhaps non-existences, and we should pursue this. But then people bring in "happiness", "pleasure", by which they don't mean some supreme metaphysical principle, they just mean... things like dopamine, something we go up and down on all the time and which our body reacts to in a certain way. When we have "pleasure" our body says "go towards", when we have "pain" our body says "move away from". That's all it is, a biological impulse to prefer or disprefer something.

So "emotions" are a biological thing, which is a chemical thing, which is a physical thing. But everything stems from a soul which experiences, and that is metaphysical. Perhaps emotions reflect a cosmic order, but I believe that that is always a particular thing, and that the only universals we know, are universal because of OUR universe, and the true universal is the experience in the first place. Is any of this making sense?

Some may see a connection between what I am saying, and the idea of introvert-subject (which experiences) and extrovert-object (which is experienced). You are right to see this bias in my ideas, as indeed all ideas are a bias of particular nature. However I am trying to get to something deeper than that, perhaps something which goes beyond our universe. It is as though, to me, all experience is essentially the same, perhaps symbolised by a heaven-hell myth, every moment every thing chooses between heaven and hell, whatever these may be.

Perhaps hell is just nothingness. Do we want this?
TAH EERF

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 21, 2013, 02:02:58 AM
The most ugly philosophy is that which is secretly religious.

And a stout insistence that cosmos is mechanistic is devoid of relugiousity? Bullshit.

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 21, 2013, 02:33:21 AM
Quote
"You can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore you believe on faith he doesn't!"

- Creationist 2013

Replace "God" with "non-material" and it's the same quality argument. Until someone can provide evidence that the "non-material" exists, it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Liberalism is moral syphilis.

- Jonathan Bowden

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 21, 2013, 02:38:21 AM
Until somebody else impresses you, you will not do something? And nobody else should, either?
Sounds a bit iffy, to me.


Squawk!

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 21, 2013, 02:56:11 AM
Believing x is true simply because it cannot be shown to be false is a terrible way of thinking and nobody should do it - if they want to be intellectually serious. I assume everybody here desires to be serious. If they don't, then obviously the statement does not apply to them.

If somebody has a reason to believe that x is true due to reasons independent of inserting the belief in a space provided by a lack of knowledge, then that should be shared if the person desires to convince other people.

Asking me to discover on my own the truth of something that I don't believe in to begin with is silly.
Liberalism is moral syphilis.

- Jonathan Bowden

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 21, 2013, 03:15:38 AM
There you have it, said by you, for no other reason than it happens to be your framework of reference:
"...if the person desires to convince other people..."

I run into this all over the internet. People who think in these terms are completely unable to imagine that there are people who have no interest in convincing anybody else of anything.
I - for example - say the things I say, and write the things I write, because my experience has shown me that they are true. And not only true, but of immense value. I communicate them for those others who can see - or are inspired by - their content. I never set out to convince anybody of anything.

I realize only those who can understand that, are going to understand it. But there it is.
Nobody ever convinces me, or proves anything to me, because I don't operate that way. I hear something, from someone, that interests me. I then pursue it, myself, to find the truth of it.

Others seem to want to passively be convinced of important things, by someone else, without ever lifting a finger themselves.

Squawk!

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 21, 2013, 04:15:10 AM
You're trying to convince me not to be convinced by you.  :P

And what would you say to this: I have been convinced by things you've written previously, especially on Amerika. The distinction between reality vs. social pretense/individual ego has become an important part of my thoughts, and yours/Brett's idea of "Crowdism" is one I've adopted into my own vocabulary.

Is this a bad thing?
Liberalism is moral syphilis.

- Jonathan Bowden

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 21, 2013, 05:24:37 AM
You tell me.
I've made my position clear. I introduce things, but I'm not in the convincing/persuading business.
I can not recommend to anyone, to do what I myself do not do: that being to blindly accept, without further investigation.
That would never do.

Meanwhile, if Brett and/or I, have done anything positive, in your view, to illuminate your view, then that is distinctly encouraging.
I may sleep better, tonight.
Squawk!

Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
December 21, 2013, 06:00:50 AM
I'm sure you've long been awaiting validation from me.

In all seriousness, it would be bizarre for anyone to be part of these forums and not have gained something from DMU/Amerika.

And I've managed to derail yet another thread. Oh dear.
Liberalism is moral syphilis.

- Jonathan Bowden