A few cells in a Petri-dish

[Freddy]

Because it is pretty obvious that you have next to no idea what it is supposed to be.

For example:

Freddy:

It’s a religious concept. Proposed when we thought we were separate from the rest of creation. Before we knew that we were an accident of the evolutionary process. So we needed something to differentiate us from the rest of the animals so it was considered that that might be a soul. Something that endows us with ‘being human’. And because the corporeal body dies and decays it needed to be eternal.

But we happen to believe that animals also have souls.

Ours are meant to be rational.

 

[goout]

Any opinions?

Difficult philosophical questions do not devalue humanity any more than silly “violinist arguments” devalue humanity.
The fact that a question is difficult and murky should not be grounds to doubt the value of human life. You should give human life the benefit of your doubts. And you should move to clarify your doubts, not entertain them in pursuit of minimalist indifference.

 

[Abrosz]

Obviously not.

You mean that you have the authority to prescribe what the experimenter should decide? That the experimenter is not allowed to bring the development to the conclusion he wishes?

An what does that “cannot be demonstrated” actually means?

Any time that you develop a soul-o-meter, which will show “no soul” or “material soul” or “immortal soul”, you will be able to demonstrate the existence of a soul. Go ahead and do it. You will receive a Nobel prize at the successful conclusion.

An organ being grown may be human tissue, but it is not a human organism that will develop like the rest of us if allowed to.

It depends when the experimenter stops the procedure. But the whole thread was designed to show that human DNA does not make a human being.

But we happen to believe that animals also have souls.

Fabricate a gadget which will demonstrate the existence of “soul”. “We happen to believe” is not an argument.

 

[goout]

"what is a human DNA?

This is what happens when you endorse vague speculation as the pursuit of truth.

 

[Abrosz]

Difficult philosophical questions do not devalue humanity any more than silly “violinist arguments” devalue humanity.
The fact that a question is difficult and murky should not be grounds to doubt the value of human life. You should give human life the benefit of your doubts. And you should move to clarify your doubts, not entertain them in pursuit of minimalist indifference.

The value of anything is decided by the “valuer”. And the “human life” is questionable.

 

[goout]

The value of anything is decided by the “valuer”. And the “human life” is questionable.

Did you really just say that?

 

[Abrosz]

Did you really just say that?

Yes, I did. There is no “intrinsic” value, without a “valuer”. The life of a sociopath may be valuable for his parents, but it is definitely not valuable for his victims. A glass of water in immensely valuable in a desert, and without value to someone sitting next to a mountain creek.

What is human life? That is the topic of this thread. Just consider: “normal” human, mutation, cyborg, android, fully artificial entity, a P-zombie, a space alien… all of them are sapient, rational beings.

 

[Rau]

Well, I’m smart enough to not have to take baby steps in any discussion about the soul. You can skip a few if you like and go straight to the point you want to make. If I get confused I’ll ask you to slow down.

Sorry Fred, I’m guided by experience which suggests a different approach. Think about the enormity of the gap between man and the smartest animal you know. Hopefully that leaves you agreeing that man really is a bit special. Until that is truly appreciated, no point thinking about how/why…

 

[Pattylt]

Think about the enormity of the gap between man and the smartest animal you know. Hopefully that leaves you agreeing that man really is a bit special. Until that is truly appreciated, no point thinking about how/why…

Our immense brain size is the largest gap between us and the primates. It’s our large complex brains that allowed us to develop intelligence and rational thinking. The rest is merely superficial…less hair, more nimble fingers, etc. our brains allowed the emergent properties of language Which enabled us to share our gained knowledge.

I’m another that sees no evidence of a soul but I wouldn’t call the idea of one nonsensical…I’d just argue that it doesn’t actually exist. It is a development of our brains and an explanation of our sense of self independent from others. Just because we feel so superior to the animal kingdom doesn’t mean we really are…but, we like feeling that way.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The soul is a red herring when it comes to these things.

 

[Rau]

Our immense brain size is the largest gap between us and the primates.

That’s a physical difference. Not the focus I intended.

I’m another that sees no evidence of a soul but I wouldn’t call the idea of one nonsensical…I’d just argue that it doesn’t actually exist. It is a development of our brains and an explanation of our sense of self independent from others. Just because we feel so superior to the animal kingdom doesn’t mean we really are…but, we like feeling that way.

This of course is supposition despite seeming reasonableness. Whether more and more brain cells is all that’s needed to differentiate man from what preceded -

 

[Pattylt]

That’s a physical difference. Not the focus I intended.

But, it’s that physical difference that leads to all the other differences…our intelligence, rationality, conceptualization, language, etc. Had our brains not done so, we wouldn’t be talking about any of this!

 

[Rau]

But, it’s that physical difference that leads to all the other differences…our intelligence, rationality, conceptualization, language, etc. Had our brains not done so, we wouldn’t be talking about any of this!

In respect of the brain, We can establish a reasonable case for it’s necessity, though not for sufficiency.

I sometimes wonder why there are not other species more similar to us (in capability). Perhaps we wiped them out, and geographic isolation has not been a sufficient factor to enable further speciation.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Well, I’m smart enough to not have to take baby steps in any discussion about the soul. You can skip a few if you like and go straight to the point you want to make. If I get confused I’ll ask you to slow down.

Sorry Fred, I’m guided by experience which suggests a different approach. Think about the enormity of the gap between man and the smartest animal you know. Hopefully that leaves you agreeing that man really is a bit special. Until that is truly appreciated, no point thinking about how/why…

I think there aren’t any gaps to skip. Your argument is that we are special…because we are a lot more intelligent than other animals. Therefore we cannot have been an accident of the evolutionary process.

But you are reverse engineering the question. There’s no problem at all having intelligence evolve to our level. In fact, I believe it’s inevitable for intelligence to emerge. But if you start with a belief in God then it cannot have been an accident so it must have been specially designed thus. And if it’s obvious to you that it’s special then it must have been designed so there must be a God.

Your concept of what is ‘a bit special’ is tied in to your belief in God. You can’t get to one from the other.

 

[Pattylt]

In respect of the brain, We can establish a reasonable case for it’s necessity, though not for sufficiency.

I sometimes wonder why there are not other species more similar to us (in capability). Perhaps we wiped them out, and geographic isolation has not been a sufficient factor to enable further speciation

Interesting thoughts…not that I actually have an answer.
First, other than religious reasons, what else would a soul be needed for?

Humans probably did wipe out any competition…it’s suspected that’s the reason the Neanderthals disappeared. We were capable of interbreeding (and did) but they were also competition for food and land. Had our two populations remained separated, how developed would they be today? Though their brains were large, they weren’t developed in the same way ours was. Interesting thought, though!

 

[Rau]

There’s no problem at all having intelligence evolve to our level. In fact, I believe it’s inevitable for intelligence to emerge.

This thinking is a akin to concluding what you first assume. A bit like the religious person who concludes there must be a soul.

But if you start with a belief in God then it cannot have been an accident so it must have been specially designed thus. And if it’s obvious to you that it’s special then it must have been designed so there must be a God.

The material evolving by evolution should not be contentious. Whether all our characteristic human qualities are attributable solely to that is naturally assumed by the atheist, but open to question by those who judge there is a God.

Your concept of what is ‘a bit special’ is tied in to your belief in God.

No - on this point I disagree. The yawning gap is just so huge. But mind you I suspect it’s not just man where we might see God - there is more going on in the world than evolution can really explain.

 

[Rau]

First, other than religious reasons, what else would a soul be needed for?

It is said this delivers capabilities the mere material of bodies cannot. That’s not something I can expand on, so don’t ask!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But if you start with a belief in God then it cannot have been an accident so it must have been specially designed thus. And if it’s obvious to you that it’s special then it must have been designed so there must be a God.

The material evolving by evolution should not be contentious. Whether all our characteristic human qualities are attributable solely to that is naturally assumed by the atheist, but open to question by those who judge there is a God.

You obviously have no problem with the evolutionary process. But a problem in that you can’t see how such a difference between us and other animals in regard to intelligence could emerge via that process. I’m not going to use the term ‘rationality’ because other animals exhibit it. And the definition is usually circular: ‘Rationality is what separates us from other animals and rationality is defined as that which we posess which separates us from other animals’.

So our current level of intelligence could not have occured via the evolutionary process or it did, and was guided by God as far as you are concerned. We can forget the latter as there is not difference that makes a difference between a natural process without God’s involvement and a natural process that does. I say tomato and you say tomatoe.

So if it didn’t occur via evolution then it was granted at some specific point by God to some or all of (pre) humans alive at that time. So on Monday we were as dumb as a pack of chimps and then on Tuesday we were contemplating our own existence and discussing the meaning of life. Well, ok…exaggerated for effect but you get the point.

That makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Rau]

That makes no sense to me at all.

Nor me. I’m glad I didn’t propose it!

 

[Freddy]

… there is more going on in the world than evolution can really explain.

Evolution won’t get you to God. You’ll need to start with God and then interpret evolution as it fits with your belief. And nobody denies evolution and therefore finds God. You need a fundamentalist’s approach to God which allows you to deny the science.

Hence my calls for ‘How old is the planet?’ If someone says a few thousand years then it’s a waste of my time discussing matters that require billions. It would be like discussing the nuances of orbital mechanics with a flat earther.