A More Localized Version of the Argument From Morality

[STT]

I talking about satisfying your definition of evidence that a soul exists.

But you cannot experience your soul hence you cannot have any evidence for it.

 

[PRmerger]

But you cannot experience your soul hence you cannot have any evidence for it.

But I have experienced my soul.

How in the world could you tell me that I cannot?

 

[STT]

But I have experienced my soul.

How in the world could you tell me that I cannot?

Your soul cannot be subject and object at the same time.

 

[PRmerger]

Your soul cannot be subject and object at the same time.

So you’re basically saying you made a demand for evidence for the existence of something which you also will deny is evidence?

How is that scientific?

 

[STT]

So you’re basically saying you made a demand for evidence for the existence of something which you also will deny is evidence?

Yes, your soul is the subject or experiencer hence it cannot be object or experience at the same time.

How is that scientific?

In science you have subject (researcher) and object (instrument).

 

[PRmerger]

So you’re basically saying you made a demand for evidence for the existence of something which you also will deny is evidence?

Yes

Well, that’s disingenuous.

No searcher for truth makes a demand for evidence that he knows can’t be fulfilled.

“I’m open minded! I’ll believe when [A] happens! Except, there’s nothing that will fulfill the requirements for [A]…so…”

 

[STT]

Well, that’s disingenuous.

No searcher for truth makes a demand for evidence that he knows can’t be fulfilled.

“I’m open minded! I’ll believe when [A] happens! Except, there’s nothing that will fulfill the requirements for [A]…so…”

I think I misunderstood your question. I think I was clear in the rest of my reply. The subject cannot be object unless you have a mysterious mirror.

 

[PRmerger]

I think I misunderstood your question. I think I was clear in the rest of my reply. The subject cannot be object unless you have a mysterious mirror.

Yes, again, language is an issue here.

If you could answer this question: what would be proof of the existence of the soul?

 

[STT]

Yes, again, language is an issue here.

If you could answer this question: what would be proof of the existence of the soul?

To experience it. But as I argued that is impossible unless you find what is wrong with my argument.

 

[PRmerger]

To experience it. But as I argued that is impossible unless you find what is wrong with my argument.

So there you go. You’ve made a demand for evidence while saying it could never actually be evidence.

That’s disingenuous.

 

[STT]

So there you go. You’ve made a demand for evidence while saying it could never actually be evidence.

That’s disingenuous.

No. All I am saying is that it is impossible to experience soul.

 

[PRmerger]

No. All I am saying is that it is impossible to experience soul.

So when I ask you what would constitute proof of the soul’s existence, you’ve set up something as your proof which is, in your own words, “impossible”.

Interesting…

 

[STT]

So when I ask you what would constitute proof of the soul’s existence, you’ve set up something as your proof which is, in your own words, “impossible”.

Interesting…

I mentioned that one needs to experience soul to be sure about its existence however this is logically impossible as it was argued.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I mentioned that one needs to experience soul to be sure about its existence however this is logically impossible as it was argued.

Don’t forget that there is no coherent definition of this “soul”.

There was another assumption made by the chemists in the 18th century: a substance called “phlogiston”, which was supposed to be a substance in all combustible substances. And there was the alleged “luminiferous ether”; the hypothetical substance through which electromagnetic waves travel. It was proposed by the Greek philosopher Aristotle and used by several optical theories as a way to allow propagation of light, which was believed to be impossible in “empty” space.

Isn’t it time to get rid of these nonsensical concepts? Are we not more advanced in physics, chemistry and biology so that we can toss these empty hypotheses into the trashcan?

 

[Mort_Alz]

Typical. When the argument territory is philosophy, the atheist tucks his tail.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m not sure where the first statement fits in, but no. Stealing is not always wrong.

See post #249 in this thread. Taking is not always wrong but stealing is. If the community does not authorize your taking the justly owned property of your neighbor then such a taking against his will is stealing and immoral. Our social contract with the community in which we live requires in justice that we obey its reasonable laws.

As to the second, it is plainly obvious that animals can rationalize. Give an animal a problem and it will solve it using rational thought. I’ve seen crows solve problems that would stump a few people I know.

Watch this and prepare to be amazed: youtube.com/watch?v=TtmLVP0HvDg

And this: youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04

And this: youtube.com/watch?v=URZ_EciujrE

Now please tell me that you realize that this type of ability, the ability to work through problems, using tools, thinking ahead – is an example of a rational mind at work. OK, a crow is not going to develop an ability to discuss psychology or critique determinism or debate the meaning of life in the next few weeks.

But it beyond question, beyond any argument, that this type of rational thought processes was something that early humans possessed. And have since developed over millions of years and countless generations to be able to discuss psychology, critique determinism and debate the meaning of life.

It’s not the case that we have the ability to think rationally and other animals don’t. It is simply a matter of degree – we do it better. And it’s not the case that we never had it and then suddenly were given it. Again, it was a matter of degree.

The associative skill, a cogitative faculty animals share with men, increases with intelligence. No doubt the crows are intelligent but the behavior shown in the videos can be completely explained as association (Ockam’s Razor).

If the crow demonstrated that it could think “tool” as an abstract idea then and only then would it display rational thought. That crows live now just as they did for a thousand years w/o progress beyond their learned experiences is indicative of the presence of associative skills and the absence of rational thought.

A demonstration of a crow’s rational thought would involve taking an infant crow from its nest and allowing it to only to hear but not see its parents at work. Seeing the infant crow then perform the same tool-using behaviors w/o prior experience would be impressive as no associative skill could be accessed in its memory. Note that in the BBC youtube.com/watch?v=cbSu2PXOTOc version, the announcer admits the bird’s prior familiarity with all the tools employed in his test.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Mort Alz;14319067:

But you haven’t put forward an argument for the supernatural. Which wasn’t the original point, incidentally - which was the appearance of rational thought, which needs no connection whatsoever with the supernatural.

Now we have reached a point where ‘supernatural essence’ is responsible, with nothing to back that up whatsoever.

I have indicated how consciousness can arise from the most basic life forms through any number of incremental stages to ourselves. I have pointed out that we have rational thought processes along with other animals and that at some point we obviously didn’t so there is every indication that it evolved.

To counter that, you say, out of the blue: ‘No, we have a supernatural essence’.

It would have saved me a lot of time if you had said that in your first post.

Here’s where I’m getting frustrated, Bradski.

Two parts:

1. You say I have not provided any evidence or proof for the supernatural, but you have not even acknowledged that proof which I have repeatedly highlighted and pointed out as the substance of my argument. You have attacked everything else but that which I have actually said is my evidence.
2. Your argument for why conscious rational thought can be totally accounted for by physical nature is frought with logical fallacies which I have pointed out which you have ignored.

Let me demonstrate. The fact that we have conscious rational beings now when we previously didn’t is only indicative that our ability to have conscious rational thought was caused by physics (in the form of evolution). It does not follow from that that consciousness is purely physical. Fire causes smoke, but it does not follow from that that smoke is fire.

I cannot stress enough that this is not a retreat by me to the “God of the gaps” argument (or the “supernature of the gaps,” if you will). You do not have to physically travel to the state of Wisconsin to know that there are no round squares in that state. It is a philosophical assumption to say that there must be a totally adequate physical explanation for consciousness, but that we just haven’t found it yet. That assumption is that physical nature is all that there is, and it is that assumption which I am challenging.

For the umpteenth time, here is what I am actually proposing as evidence for the supernatural:

To say that conscious rational thought is the same thing as the unconscious non-rational matter in our brains is entirely self-contradictory. Unconsciousness cannot, at the same time, be consciousness. Non-rational matter cannot, at the same time, even collectively, be a rational being.

Here’s a rather long-winded explanation:

If A is the same as B, then everything true of A should also be true of B and vice versa. Conversely, if something is true of A which is not true of B, then it follows that A is something different from B.

Thoughts are a part of consciousness. If consciousness is the same as our brain and its physical activities, then thoughts would also have to be the same as our brain and its physical activity.

Neuroscientists have discovered that when we have specific thoughts, they are directly correlated to electrical activities in specific parts of our brains according to the kinds of thoughts being experienced.

We know from experiencing thoughts that they have the property of being able to either be true or false.

This brain activity that occurs when we have thoughts does not have this property. Asking “Is that electrical event true or false?” is a nonsensical question just as nonsensical as asking if the flower’s activity of turning towards the sun is true or false.

Now we have just discovered something that is true of thoughts (that they can be either true or false) that is not true of the brain. Therefore, we have discovered one aspect of consciousness that is not physical; namely, thoughts.

 

[Bradski]

A demonstration of a crow’s rational thought would involve taking an infant crow from its nest and allowing it to only to hear but not see its parents at work. Seeing the infant crow then perform the same tool-using behaviors w/o prior experience would be impressive as no associative skill could be accessed in its memory. Note that in the BBC youtube.com/watch?v=cbSu2PXOTOc version, the announcer admits the bird’s prior familiarity with all the tools employed in his test.

The crows had seen the tools before but they hadn’t seen other crows use them. This wasn’t learned behaviour. They weren’t copying other crows or indeed anyone else. They were actively thinking.

‘I need a long stick to reach the food but I can’t reach it in the cage. But if I remove the short stick from the string I can use that to get the long stick and then reach the food’.

‘I can’t reach the food myself so I need to use a long stick to do so. But the stick can’t pick up the food so I need to construct a hook on the end of it.’

That is without doubt an example of a rational thought process. If I saw a two year old doing either of these I’d be freaked out.

 

[Bradski]

[We know from experiencing thoughts that they have the property of being able to either be true or false.

This brain activity that occurs when we have thoughts does not have this property. Asking “Is that electrical event true or false?” is a nonsensical question just as nonsensical as asking if the flower’s activity of turning towards the sun is true or false.

Now we have just discovered something that is true of thoughts (that they can be either true or false) that is not true of the brain. Therefore, we have discovered one aspect of consciousness that is not physical; namely, thoughts.

This is simply not true. When you think of something as being true, there is activity in specific areas of your brain, physical activity comprising electrical and chemical changes. When you think of something as being false, different physical events will occur.

These different states are associated with actual,events that correspond to our definition of the terms true and false.

But if you maintain that there is some form of dualism that we posess, then you must agree that it is not only present in humans. You were quite keen to represent it as the ability for rational thought but as we have seen, even crows exhibit rational thought processes. And I’m pretty sure that we could find examples throughout the animal kingdom.

Likewise, I am certain that as you went further back in human history we would find that this ability for rational thought decreased to the point where it dissapeared as we reached a very early stage of our evolution.

So just play the tape forwards and we see rational thought, not turned ON at one single moment - yesterday we were mindless idiots, today we are tool making masters of the universe, but gradually developing.
[/quote]

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t forget that there is no coherent definition of this “soul”.

What an odd thing to say for a person who spent quite a lot of time discussing the immortality of a soul with us here on the CAFs.

If you didn’t really actually know what a soul was, why in the world would you talk about it?

Imagine if you were having a long discussion with someone about climate change, and this person was objecting to every argument you presented…and then, months later, she says, “Well, I don’t even know what climate change is. No one has really offered a coherent definition of it!”

…you’d be justified in saying, “What the what? How it that you and I chatted for pages and pages about climate change, and it turns out you didn’t even know what climate change was??”

Or…another justified response would be, “Oh. Really. Since you and I chatted for pages and pages about climate change, I’m pretty sure you know what it is. Why you’re suddenly saying you can’t define it is…peculiar.”