nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Do you believe you have a soul?

twistedsoul

No fish jokes :rolleyes:

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

partyatmygaff

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I'd say it would be more accurate to say that the rational mind refuses to randomly 'believe' in things that cannot be measured or observed.

That's making the grand assumption that we have the capability to measure and observe everything.

Maximus Alexander

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's making the grand assumption that we have the capability to measure and observe everything.

Not at all. It's making the observation that if we can neither measure or observe something then we don't know it exists and indeed it might as well not.

Maximus Alexander

Doc Ruby wrote: »

So the rational mind wouldn't have believed in radio waves a few hundred years ago, is what you're saying.

No. Nobody had cause to 'believe' in radio waves a few hundred years ago. If they had, they could have come up with a method of proving their existence, because radio waves are measurable.

CrazyRabbit

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Hooray for low self-esteem?

I always found the whole "I'm just worm food" thing a bit strange. Surely no one in their right mind could possibly consider themselves as being nothing more than "worm food in the manufacturing stage".

Not worm food yet. But will be. There's a difference.

Doc Ruby

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

No. Nobody had cause to 'believe' in radio waves a few hundred years ago. If they had, they could have come up with a method of proving their existence, because radio waves are measurable.

So basically rationality is not omniscience.

Thus confident assertions that information is not preserved in some way after death are as much wishful thinking as anything else. The correct way to put it is that as far as scientific progress can tell at this point, death is final.

Then again, the speed of light was unbreakable not too long ago.

partyatmygaff

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Not at all. It's making the observation that if we can neither measure or observe something then we don't know it exists and indeed it might as well not.

But that does not mean that people who do believe that such a thing as a soul exists are somehow intellectually inferior.

If someone in first century AD told the scientists of the day that they believed that they could harness electromagnetic energy and use it to transmit information over huge distances they'd have been called mad. Human understanding is not absolute and will never be absolute.

As such, the best solution is to consider it a hypothesis that we as of yet cannot and may not ever be able to test conclusively. As with all hypotheses, there will be those that support it (believe in a soul) and those who do not support it (do not believe in a soul).

[Deleted User]

no, anatta

Scanlas The 2nd

cloptrop wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Do you consider yourself superior to non self aware matter such as a chair?

Yes I am the boss of the chair , I can create a chair , I can destroy a chair , I can rape a chair , I can dress the chair up in ladies underwear and take it to the park .
What kind of question is that . ??
I am expecting a life changing comeback here man , raise my level of consciousness by 5 hp .

Ok do you consider yourself superior to a severely retarded person who isn't self aware?

Maximus Alexander

Sorry, I was on the bus. Let me try and put this in a better way.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

So basically rationality is not omniscience.

Thus confident assertions that information is not preserved in some way after death are as much wishful thinking as anything else. The correct way to put it is that as far as scientific progress can tell at this point, death is final.

Then again, the speed of light was unbreakable not too long ago.

The speed of light is still thought to be unbreakable. To a very high degree of confidence.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

But that does not mean that people who do believe that such a thing as a soul exists are somehow intellectually inferior.

If someone in first century AD told the scientists of the day that they believed that they could harness electromagnetic energy and use it to transmit information over huge distances they'd have been called mad. Human understanding is not absolute and will never be absolute.

As such, the best solution is to consider it a hypothesis that we as of yet cannot and may not ever be able to test conclusively. As with all hypotheses, there will be those that support it (believe in a soul) and those who do not support it (do not believe in a soul).

No, I'm not suggesting that people who believe in a soul are intellectually inferior. It's possible that they have never been taught to think critically, or that they don't want to try because the notion of a soul is comfortable.

Now, why would someone in the first century even posit the existence of the electromagnetic force? Are you suggesting that it came to them in a dream? If so, to believe in it would not be rational. More likely they observed something that suggested its existence. From that, they should be able to devise a method of proving its existence.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. What is the phenomenon that the notion of a soul tries to explain? Consciousness?

If so, how would you go about testing its existence? If the idea of a soul is not falsifiable, then it is not rational.

For example, I could tell you that I believe there is a perfectly formed china teapot orbiting the sun just beyond Mars. This can't be falsified, observed or measured, so my belief in it is entirely unreasonable. Perhaps I am right, but since it has literally no impact on our existence and we can never observe it, does it even matter if I am? It effectively does not exist. And you would most likely consider me mad for believing it.

LH Pathe

in popular culture terms note the the true meaning of soul in any shape or form was lauded as 'emo' over the past decade to such an extent it ceased production whilst getting rich or dying trying was top of the ke$h-money charts. This is what we now instill in our children who now dominate the market -

Hear / see evil? know it / speak of it if you wanna be truly bulletproof ain't no marvin Gaye to bleed the way for you in these celebratory croney times that's for sure.

Fromthetrees

Have a soul?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Seachmall

Doc Ruby wrote: »

So the rational mind wouldn't have believed in radio waves a few hundred years ago, is what you're saying.

Probably not. Of course radio waves would have been there but there would be no reason to believe in them. The results don't justify the reasoning.

partyatmygaff wrote:

But that does not mean that people who do believe that such a thing as a soul exists are somehow intellectually inferior.

If someone in first century AD told the scientists of the day that they believed that they could harness electromagnetic energy and use it to transmit information over huge distances they'd have been called mad. Human understanding is not absolute and will never be absolute.

As such, the best solution is to consider it a hypothesis that we as of yet cannot and may not ever be able to test conclusively. As with all hypotheses, there will be those that support it (believe in a soul) and those who do not support it (do not believe in a soul).

You're comparing the metaphysical with the physical there.

In an abstract way that comparison is fine but when using it justify rationality it's not.

The person who thought they could harness electromagnetic energy was making a prediction based on solid assumptions and knowledge (given that they're aware of electromagnetic signals we can assume they have some understanding of physics and the physical world).

The soul, however, is an assumption all on it's own. There is no supporting reasons based on what we know to exist as to why a soul is at least plausible.

Is there a soul? Nobody knows.
Is it rational to believe in it? No.

I'm not saying people who believe in it are "inferior" or whatever by the way. I really don't care what people believe (most of the time anyway).

Doc Ruby

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The speed of light is still thought to be unbreakable. To a very high degree of confidence.

Well the jury is still out but its not looking good for Einstein.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html

To go back to what I was saying earlier, no people of that time could not have tested for radio waves because they hadn't the scientific knowledge nor engineering ability to do so. It would have been impossible at their stage of development to verify whether or not radio waves existed.

Nonetheless radio waves existed then just as they do now.

So it is impossible to say with any confidence that there is no such thing as life after death. In fact saying so is the opposite of the scientific method.

Now you can argumentum ad absurdum all you like about teapots in space, but everything we don't know can be set on a scale of possibility. Life on other planets? Quite possible. Some kind of preservation of information structures after death? Less likely, but still possible. Teapots in space, invisible pink unicorns all around us? Very unlikely.

But if you want to start talking about teapots in space you can dismiss life on other planets with the same breath as you dismiss post mortem persistence.

What we have here is a backlash against organised religion, and believe me I'm no fan of organised religion, running roughshod over things that might in fact potentially be true and/or useful.

Rationality is the road, not the destination.

Deus Ex Machina

INEEDANID wrote: »

[SIZE="7"]I know I have many soles[/SIZE]

[SIZE="1"]On the bottom of my shoes[/SIZE]

Oh ffs

RichieC

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I'd say it would be more accurate to say that the rational mind refuses to randomly 'believe' in things that cannot be measured or observed.

That's making the grand assumption that we have the capability to measure and observe everything.

A better grand assumption.

Because god!!!!!

shantolog

Holy Mackerel this thread is going down fast...

I don't know if I have a soul but the atoms I'm made of are as old as the universe, and was created inside a sun

Seachmall

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Some kind of preservation of information structures after death? Less likely, but still possible. Teapots in space, invisible pink unicorns all around us? Very unlikely.

Actually, Teapots in space are more likely than IPU and Souls.

Simply because a Teapot is a physical structure and doesn't require an assumption of the metaphysical.

And the IPU is completely impossible, that's the point. Something can't be both Pink and Invisible.

Jesus Wept

I traded it for Alf pogs.

RichieC

The-Rigger wrote: »

I traded it for Alf pogs.

The market for them died on its arse...

Doc Ruby

Seachmall wrote: »

Is there a soul? Nobody knows.
Is it rational to believe in it? No.

When we have no real understanding of intelligence or what constitutes it, and this intelligence is in fact what some think persists, I would say its overconfident to assert that it does not exist.

We have a hard time even finding an adequate definition for life.

Spread

twistedsoul wrote: »

No fish jokes :rolleyes:

Holy mackerel! Why not?

Doc Ruby

Seachmall wrote: »

Actually, Teapots in space are more likely than IPU and Souls.

Simply because a Teapot is a physical structure and doesn't require an assumption of the metaphysical.

But if I had turned around to you in 1150 AD and said, "Lo, Seachmall, i'faith there waftes about me vapours that can be used for scrying and such", you'd have said "Lole, Doc, waite and I'll fetche the trepanner". Assuming that we know all there is to know, or even the majority of it, is a dangerous assumption.

LH Pathe

You can't have good business acumen and soul for we are dealing with emotions here, morals- Frailties. the scientific can't possibly understand it either just a poisonous chemical byproduct to be purged

Maximus Alexander

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Well the jury is still out but its not looking good for Einstein.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html

To go back to what I was saying earlier, no people of that time could not have tested for radio waves because they hadn't the scientific knowledge nor engineering ability to do so. It would have been impossible at their stage of development to verify whether or not radio waves existed.

Nonetheless radio waves existed then just as they do now.

So it is impossible to say with any confidence that there is no such thing as life after death. In fact saying so is the opposite of the scientific method.

Now you can argumentum ad absurdum all you like about teapots in space, but everything we don't know can be set on a scale of possibility. Life on other planets? Quite possible. Some kind of preservation of information structures after death? Less likely, but still possible. Teapots in space, invisible pink unicorns all around us? Very unlikely.

But if you want to start talking about teapots in space you can dismiss life on other planets with the same breath as you dismiss post mortem persistence.

What we have here is a backlash against organised religion, and believe me I'm no fan of organised religion, running roughshod over things that might in fact potentially be true and/or useful.

Rationality is the road, not the destination.

I'm trying to be level headed in this discussion, but there is so much misinformation in that post that I am not sure where to start, and am beginning to wonder if you are trying to wind me up.

Regarding the faster than light neutrinos - The Telegraph is not the best source of science literature. The subsequent tests were performed using the same equipment that was used in the original anomalous case. They removed one of many potential sources of error. The results have not been independently confirmed elsewhere. Those who created this result are not even suggesting that they have broken General Relativity. What is essentially happening is that they are saying "There is something wrong with our methods, we can't figure it out, we need help to find the problem".

Radio waves hundreds of years ago - In your alternate reality there is somebody who "believes" in them in that time frame. That would require some sort of observation. If you have the technology to observe them, then you have the technology to test for them, or at least to conceptualise a valid test (it doesn't matter whether or not you have the resources or technology to carry it out). In our actual reality, nobody "believed" in them because they did not even have any concept of their existence.

Nowhere did I suggest that we currently know about everything, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to posit the existence of random objects or phenomena without any evidence or observations.

Life on other planets - of course it's quite possible. We have observed both life and planets. And life on a planet. I don't see how this is even vaguely similar.

You still haven't even bothered to expand on how one would go about falsifying the soul.

Seachmall

Doc Ruby wrote: »

When we have no real understanding of intelligence or what constitutes it, and this intelligence is in fact what some think persists, I would say its overconfident to assert that it does not exist.

We have a hard time even finding an adequate definition for life.

Absolutes are always overconfident.

However If you asked a scientist 500 years ago could we make something out of nothing they'd have said "No, absolutely not.", which is a perfectly valid answer.

Ask one now and they'd say "Maybe.", which is also a perfectly valid answer.

The difference is the definition of "nothing" from now and 500 years ago, but based on the knowledge of the different time periods they're both correct answers. They're not universal absolutes, they're relative based on their understanding of the physical world posing as absolutes, which is what most people mean when they give "absolutes".

In short; "No, souls don't exist."

lividduck

Doc Ruby wrote: »

When we have no real understanding of intelligence or what constitutes it, and this intelligence is in fact what some think persists, I would say its overconfident to assert that it does not exist.

We have a hard time even finding an adequate definition for life.

Somebody's trying really had to appear deep and intellectual

RichieC

It would be nice if we did have one so I don't blame people for trying to rationalise one. It's an easy and comforting answer.

partyatmygaff

RichieC wrote: »

A better grand assumption.

Because god!!!!!

Deary me. Yet again, you've followed me to another thread on boards.ie to post a contextually irrelevant and nonsensical six word long "rebuttal" with your signature tone of superiority. Quelle surprise.

If you've got an issue with me and/or my posts; kindly put me on ignore, send me a PM and "vent" as much as you'd like. This nonsense of you following me around boards.ie hijacking threads just to post your oh-so-original bite-size digs has gotten beyond annoying.

RichieC

I havent replied to one of your posts in about 3 months.

LH Pathe

Hahahaha

.. Conscience. Do you have one? Do you act on it. Do you feel others' shame where they don't..

Did you require Moses to show you right from wrong like it were a revelation?!!