Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 6:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 6:42 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 5:57 pm
But the soul must be dependent on the body then

"Must" be? Why "must" and "then"? I'm not seeing the logic you're invoking there.

The soul is not chemical, physical or biological...but is real. How does that argue that the soul is "dependent on the body"?

You said consciousness, awareness and personality are constituents of the soul. Well those things disappear under certain physical conditions, such as brain damage, anaesthesia etc.

"Disappear" to you, the external observer. But go where?

That only implies that your interaction with somebody else's soul is conditioned by physical situation. It doesn't tell you whether or not they have a soul after you can no longer interact with them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 7:00 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 6:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 6:42 pm
"Must" be? Why "must" and "then"? I'm not seeing the logic you're invoking there.

The soul is not chemical, physical or biological...but is real. How does that argue that the soul is "dependent on the body"?

You said consciousness, awareness and personality are constituents of the soul. Well those things disappear under certain physical conditions, such as brain damage, anaesthesia etc.

"Disappear" to you, the external observer. But go where?

That only implies that your interaction with somebody else's soul is conditioned by physical situation. It doesn't tell you whether or not they have a soul after you can no longer interact with them.

What about people who have been in commas, and come out of them weeks, or even years, later; they don't have any awareness of the time they spent in the comma. They are not external observers. And when people get drunk, or take certain drugs, their personality quite often changes during the time they are under the influence. If their personality does not emerge from brain activity, why would it be affected?

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 7:16 pm What about people who have been in commas, and come out of them weeks, or even years, later; they don't have any awareness of the time they spent in the comma.

Well, likewise, what about the people who go biologically dead for a few moments, and come back claiming they'd seen heaven or Hell?

Same answer as to your question: we don't really know. It's interesting, but not telling. They've had an existential experience you and I don't have. Maybe there's something to it, and maybe not. But I don't think you and I are well positioned to judge what happened, are we?

And when people get drunk, or take certain drugs, their personality quite often changes during the time they are under the influence. If their personality does not emerge from brain activity, why would it be affected?

What that shows is that there is some correlation between soul and body. But we don't know the exact nature of it. That's the most we can safely say, without lapsing into what's known as a "correlational fallacy" -- thinking that the coincidence of two things is proof of their causality.

What seems certain, though, is that the soul is not just the body. If you asphixiate somebody, you'll have every molecule of their body present. Their whole physical brain will be right there, in their skull. But "something" will be missing. The person that is "them" will have fled that house. If the physical body was all that was necessary, you should be able to resuscitate them, dead though they be. However, there comes a point, and early on, when the "them" that is them will never return, no matter what we do.

And where has it gone?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 7:36 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 7:16 pm What about people who have been in commas, and come out of them weeks, or even years, later; they don't have any awareness of the time they spent in the comma.

Well, likewise, what about the people who go biologically dead for a few moments, and come back claiming they'd seen heaven or Hell?

I imagine that is some sort of hallucination that occurrs at some point. Again, caused by the brain, but that is only an assumption.

Same answer as to your question: we don't really know. It's interesting, but not telling. They've had an existential experience you and I don't have. Maybe there's something to it, and maybe not. But I don't think you and I are well positioned to judge what happened, are we?

No, I can't say for sure that they haven't actually had a glimpse of Heaven or Hell.

What seems certain, though, is that the soul is not just the body. If you asphixiate somebody, you'll have every molecule of their body present. Their whole physical brain will be right there, in their skull. But "something" will be missing. The person that is "them" will have fled that house.

Yes, but that tells us nothing. I would say that when the brain ceases to function, the person ceases to exist, but you might say otherwise.

If the physical body was all that was necessary, you should be able to resuscitate them, dead though they be.

I don't understand your reasoning. Once any living organism is properly dead, it is dead forever, whether it be animal or vegetable, and I don't expect that you think plants have souls.

However, there comes a point, and early on, when the "them" that is them will never return, no matter what we do.

And where has it gone?

Where does the flame go when you throw water on a fire?

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 8:02 pm Where does the flame go when you throw water on a fire?

Now you're talking like a Buddhist.

That's what they say.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 5:37 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 4:49 am a consciousness, an awareness, a personality ..that is empirical

They are not confirmable by any empirical science...physics, biology, chemistry... They are only things that are existentially experienced and known. And that, I suggest, is because they are constituents of the soul, not of physics.

But I don't find you insightful, so that's all I'll bother to point out about that to you.

You are very short-sighted with your above claims.

The reality of a living human being [even a corpse] is verifiable, justifiable and confirmable by the human-based physics, biology, chemistry Frameworks and System of Reality [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].

A consciousness, an awareness, a personality ..that is empirical, these are verifiable, justifiable and confirmable by the human-based science-psychology & psychiatry FSK from a TOP-DOWN basis grounded on the physics, biology, & chemistry FSK.
It is undeniable, even with its current weaknesses, psychology & psychiatry has contributed immensely to the well being of humans and humanity; they are continually progressing to iron out the weaknesses within their respective FSK.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 1:44 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 8:02 pm Where does the flame go when you throw water on a fire?

Now you're talking like a Buddhist.

That's what they say.

I didn't do it on purpose.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 5:45 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 7:43 am To reject any team's god-claim is not to assert that there are no gods.

Yep, it's the same.

If I say, "There's a God," and you say, "There are no gods," then you have rejected my claim alright: and made your own contrary claim about what we can include in the set of "things that exist."

It's your deliberate misrepresentation of what an atheist has to believe.

Show that. Show that anything of what I have said the Atheist has to believe is not the case. Let's start with the below:

Let's start with the first [belief supposedly entailed by rejection of any team's god-claim], which is a very straightforward one:

P1: Only God can give mortals life after death.
P2: There is no God. (Atheism: or, if you like, "I reject all God claims." Same thing.)
C: There is no life after death.

Now, you say that "none of those" beliefs is entailed by Atheism. But here, it seems clear to me that this (dis-)belief HAS to be entailed by Atheism.

Explain how you concluded I was wrong about that, and an Atheist can still believe in (literal) life after death.

...that's not to reject the possibility of life after death by some other cause or means....

You're denying the truth of my first premise, then. You're saying it's not true that "ONLY God can give mortals life after death." The logic, as you can see, is fine: but you're alleging the conclusion is not valid because of the untruthfulness of premise 1.

You have another candidate, plausibly?

What "means," other than God, do you suggest is capable of providing life after death?

1 Don't tell me what I believe. Fuck off.

2 Consider the following argument.

P1 I reject any team's god-claim.
P2 One team claims that only its god can give mortals life-after-death.
C Therefore, I reject the possibility of life-after-death.

Now, if you don't understand why that's invalid - why it's a non sequitur - why to reject any team's god claim is not to reject the possibility of life after death - let's end this conversation here. I have no interest in educating you about deductive inference.

And don't be obtuse about what other means or cause could give mortals life-after-death. I'm not claiming there is one. And if that's beyond your comprehension - again - let's not bother.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 11:23 am Now, if you don't understand why that's invalid - why it's a non sequitur - why to reject any team's god claim is not to reject the possibility of life after death - let's end this conversation here. I have no interest in educating you about deductive inference.

So if you don't reject a possibility then you accept a possibility.

What valid and sound arugment lead you to conclude that whatever it is that you accept is possible?

I have no interest in educating you about pragmatic implicatives either, but ignorance is the root of all evil and it's necessary to uproot evil.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 11:23 am
1 Don't tell me what I believe.

I'll go you one better: I can tell you what all Atheists are logically obligated to believe, if they actually believe their Atheism at all.

2 Consider the following argument.

P1 I reject any team's god-claim.
P2 One team claims that only its god can give mortals life-after-death.
C Therefore, I reject the possibility of life-after-death.

The logical conclusion is only, "Therefore, I reject that team's claim."

Now, if you don't understand why that's invalid - why it's a non sequitur - why to reject any team's god claim is not to reject the possibility of life after death

I did not say it was. You have indeed created an invalid syllogism there, as I note above.

But if, as you say, you think life after death is a "possibility," you must have reasons for thinking that. Otherwise, it's just a very wild speculation, and not a very probable one, since it's not been the case ever. In any case, it would render the conclusion invalid, because although you might want to speculate that in the future one day, through some unknown means, there might be another kind of life after death, even you have to realize that it's not the case right now.

So even if you resort to wild, wild speculating about the future, you would have to concede the point at present: that at present, only God can produce life after death. He has no competitors...at the moment...and most probably, at no time in the future either.

The argument would therefore hold as I put it. Premise 1 is actually quite solid. And unless you've got a way of showing that life after death with no intervention from God is a "possiblility," you'd be irrational to suppose that it was.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 3:40 pm I can tell you what all Atheists are logically obligated to believe, if they actually believe their Atheism at all.

Well of course you can, because you invented Atheism and Atheists, therefore you get to define exactly what they are. That's no good when talking about the real world, because there are no Atheists there, only atheists.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 4:00 pm ..."all kinds of weird and wonderful things..."

Here's a list of such things that we can see from this very board that Atheist believe:

An Atheist is calm, objective, intelligent and rational – but somebody who says he’s an Atheist is perfectly free to believe whatever “weird and wonderful” things he may wish that do not cohere with what he says he believes about the universe. (Except that God exists, of course.)

Atheism is scientific – but it requires no evidence, tests or demonstrations…in other words, no science.

You can’t object to Atheism, or ask anything of an Atheist, because he’s just giving a statement about his personal belief and his own opinion – but you also have to be converted to his opinion, and you’re a superstitious fool if you’re not. But he also doesn’t have to give you reasons why you must believe his opinion, because…

An Atheist does not owe anybody any evidence, because all he does is deny or disbelieve or refuse – but the problem with your belief as a Theist is that you have no evidence. How does the Atheist know you have no evidence? Because he knows of none, and nobody can know of things he doesn’t know. That would be impossible.

Morality is subjective, a construct, or merely a sociological phenomenon, whenever Atheists don’t want to be told what to do, or how to live their lives – but since Atheists sometimes decide to behave morally anyway, their morality is objectively real and solid, and actually exists, and you can’t accuse Atheism of rationalizing with amorality.

Somebody who has no belief in God is an Atheist, and human beings are not special creatures, but are simply a part of the natural world -- but rocks, trees, blue whales and paramecia are not Atheists, even though they lack belief in God. But human beings are still not special.

This world is a product of nothing but time, chance and basic physical regularities -- but that does not mean it is not meaningful or not heading in a purposeful direction, because evolution goes forward, or because we made up some stuff to fill that gap; and as long as we feel happy, our lives are meaningful and purposeful. There could be a multiverse...or layers of reality...non-superstitious stuff, as opposed to the superstitious stuff Theists might think exists.

There is no objective basis to justice, and nothing in the universe to assure we're owed justice -- but if you believe in God, are guilty of injustice, like the Inquisitions, the Wars of Religion, the Crusades, which are all unjust. And we all deserve Social Justice. And we want it now.

This is, indeed, a "weird and wonderful" list of things: and you will find, if you look back, that avowed Atheists have said them all right here, on this site. Are they free to keep believing those things? Sure. But we also don't have to take them seriously when they do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 4:06 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 4:00 pm ..."all kinds of weird and wonderful things..."

Here's a list of such things that we can see from this very board that Atheist believe:

An Atheist is calm, objective, intelligent and rational – but somebody who says he’s an Atheist is perfectly free to believe whatever “weird and wonderful” things he may wish that do not cohere with what he says he believes about the universe. (Except that God exists, of course.)

Atheism is scientific – but it requires no evidence, tests or demonstrations…in other words, no science.

You can’t object to Atheism, or ask anything of an Atheist, because he’s just giving a statement about his personal belief and his own opinion – but you also have to be converted to his opinion, and you’re a superstitious fool if you’re not. But he also doesn’t have to give you reasons why you must believe his opinion, because…

An Atheist does not owe anybody any evidence, because all he does is deny or disbelieve or refuse – but the problem with your belief as a Theist is that you have no evidence. How does the Atheist know you have no evidence? Because he knows of none, and nobody can know of things he doesn’t know. That would be impossible.

Morality is subjective, a construct, or merely a sociological phenomenon, whenever Atheists don’t want to be told what to do, or how to live their lives – but since Atheists sometimes decide to behave morally anyway, their morality is objectively real and solid, and actually exists, and you can’t accuse Atheism of rationalizing with amorality.

Somebody who has no belief in God is an Atheist, and human beings are not special creatures, but are simply a part of the natural world -- but rocks, trees, blue whales and paramecia are not Atheists, even though they lack belief in God. But human beings are still not special.

This world is a product of nothing but time, chance and basic physical regularities -- but that does not mean it is not meaningful or not heading in a purposeful direction, because evolution goes forward, or because we made up some stuff to fill that gap; and as long as we feel happy, our lives are meaningful and purposeful. There could be a multiverse...or layers of reality...non-superstitious stuff, as opposed to the superstitious stuff Theists might think exists.

There is no objective basis to justice, and nothing in the universe to assure we're owed justice -- but if you believe in God, are guilty of injustice, like the Inquisitions, the Wars of Religion, the Crusades, which are all unjust. And we all deserve Social Justice. And we want it now.

This is, indeed, a "weird and wonderful" list of things: and you will find, if you look back, that avowed Atheists have said them all right here, on this site. Are they free to keep believing those things? Sure. But we also don't have to take them seriously when they do.

I know there are plenty of atheists on the site, but I haven't seen any Atheists, so I don't know what they tend to believe. And we don't have to take anyone seriously if we don't want to, including you.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 5:38 pm ...we don't have to take anyone seriously if we don't want to, including you.

Indeed we do not. We don't have to take Atheists seriously, or cynics seriously, or enthusiasts seriously, and you don't have to take me seriously. But you also don't have to take anybody seriously when they tell you anything -- your bank, when they send you an "overdrawn" notice, the government, when they demand your taxes, the doctor if he tells you that you have cancer, the neighbour who warns you there's a rabid dog in the street...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 5:45 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 5:38 pm ...we don't have to take anyone seriously if we don't want to, including you.

Indeed we do not. We don't have to take Atheists seriously, or cynics seriously, or enthusiasts seriously, and you don't have to take me seriously. But you also don't have to take anybody seriously when they tell you anything -- your bank, when they send you an "overdrawn" notice, the government, when they demand your taxes, the doctor if he tells you that you have cancer, the neighbour who warns you there's a rabid dog in the street...

Yes, exactly.