Morality or Obedience?

[element771]

For physicalism, maybe. Fortunately for me I'm not a physicalist, so I don't have that problem.

So if physicalism is true, I am a different person after a night of sleep or after being knocked unconscious?

[JonathanL]

I just don't agree.

There is nothing special about the atoms that compose me at the moment. So for God to reassemble atoms to recapitulate my brain states, I don't see a problem.

They wouldn't be your brain states, they would be your replica's. And I agree that there's nothing special about the atoms that compose us at this very moment. In fact, I don't believe that they are what constitutes as at the moment, given that I'm a dualist. I'm just granting it as a hypothetical. In fact, I don't believe persons could even exist if physicalism were true, we would simply be cold unfeeling automatons.

What is the scientific evidence for the soul?

There doesn't exist any. The existence of the soul is a matter beyond the dominion of science. You can't prove or disprove the existence of the soul with science, any more then you can prove or disprove the existence of God. Science can only examine the material, God and the soul is immaterial, so they couldn't be subject to scientific scrutiny. Philosophical arguments and divine revelation is the only things that can tell us whether souls exist or not.

[JonathanL]

So if physicalism is true, I am a different person after a night of sleep or after being knocked unconscious?

If physicalism is true I don't even believe we would be persons in the first place. But if, hypothetically, physicalism was true, and persons could exist as states of the brain I don't see why sleeping or being knocked unconscious would constitute a problem, given that there would still be brain activity, no matter how low, to keep that "person" in existence. Death would involve complete cessation of brain activity, which would be a completely different, and much more severe problem.

[carpedm9587]

If physicalism is true I don't even believe we would be persons in the first place. But if, hypothetically, physicalism was true, and persons could exist as states of the brain I don't see why sleeping or being knocked unconscious would constitute a problem, given that there would still be brain activity, no matter how low, to keep that "person" in existence. Death would involve complete cessation of brain activity, which would be a completely different, and much more severe problem.

After reading through all of these posts, you appear to be taking a position that is not defensible because of your antipathy for "physicalism" (materialism?). You also appear to be arguing from silence/ignorance. First, we do not know the forces behind the relationship between the material and immaterial - we just know it exists. We also don't know what gravity is - but we know it exists. And this idea that a being that is exactly my duplicate at a separate moment in time (e.g., time travel) or place in space (e.g., matter transporation) is not me is a very odd one, and simply seems to be taken to support the position you want to hold (that we need a soul to give us continuity - I think).

If we were able to transport matter, and an accident occurred in which I was exactly duplicated, at that very instant of duplication, there would be two indistinguishable instances of "me." From that moment on, their experiences would differ, so they would continue as two separate persons. Which one is the continuation of "me" and which one the duplicate? There is no answer to that question. Each will experience itself as the continuation of "me," but would likewise see itself as distinct from the other "me."

There is some precedence here. In utero, an egg can split to become two distinct human beings. Assuming fraternal twins, it was fertilized as one being, but then spontaneously divided to become two. Your argument has some very odd consequences for this reality.

[JonathanL]

After reading through all of these posts, you appear to be taking a position that is not defensible because of your antipathy for "physicalism" (materialism?).

I don't believe I have an antipathy towards physicalism. I just don't find any good reasons to believe in it.

You also appear to be arguing from silence/ignorance. First, we do not know the forces behind the relationship between the material and immaterial - we just know it exists. We also don't know what gravity is - but we know it exists. And this idea that a being that is exactly my duplicate at a separate moment in time (e.g., time travel) or place in space (e.g., matter transporation) is not me is a very odd one, and simply seems to be taken to support the position you want to hold (that we need a soul to give us continuity - I think).

Well, it's the other way around. I don't hold to these ideas/beliefs because I want to believe in a soul, they are some of the reasons I believe that we have a soul.

If we were able to transport matter, and an accident occurred in which I was exactly duplicated, at that very instant of duplication, there would be two indistinguishable instances of "me." From that moment on, their experiences would differ, so they would continue as two separate persons. Which one is the continuation of "me" and which one the duplicate? There is no answer to that question. Each will experience itself as the continuation of "me," but would likewise see itself as distinct from the other "me."

There is some precedence here. In utero, an egg can split to become two distinct human beings. Assuming fraternal twins, it was fertilized as one being, but then spontaneously divided to become two. Your argument has some very odd consequences for this reality.

No, not really. These wonky consequences would only exist in a physicalist reality. For the dualist they're not a problem at all.

[carpedm9587]

I don't believe I have an antipathy towards physicalism. I just don't find any good reasons to believe in it.

Well, it's the other way around. I don't hold to these ideas/beliefs because I want to believe in a soul, they are some of the reasons I believe that we have a soul.

No, not really. These wonky consequences would only exist in a physicalist reality. For the dualist they're not a problem at all.

OK. So, out of curiosity, how does the dualist deal with the transporter accident proposed above as a thought experiment?

[JonathanL]

OK. So, out of curiosity, how does the dualist deal with the transporter accident proposed above as a thought experiment?

The accident you propose wouldn't be possible, or to be more specific, wouldn't result in the outcome you describe under dualism. There would be two identical bodies, but only one of them would be alive and conscious, housing the soul. The other body would just be a lifeless corpse. Unless of course, a new soul was somehow created along with the duplication of the body.

[carpedm9587]

The accident you propose wouldn't be possible, or to be more specific, wouldn't result in the outcome you describe under dualism. There would be two identical bodies, but only one of them would be alive and conscious, housing the soul. The other body would just be a lifeless corpse. Unless of course, a new soul was somehow created along with the duplication of the body.

So your position is that the soul "animates" the body in some fashion? And what evidence do you offer for this immaterial control over the material?

[JonathanL]

So your position is that the soul "animates" the body in some fashion? And what evidence do you offer for this immaterial control over the material?

If you're asking for scientific evidence I don't have any. I believe in the existence of the soul and it's control over the body because I believe that our experiences (and I'm not even sure we would even have "experiences" in the first place) would be radically different under physicalism/non-dualism than what they are now.

[carpedm9587]

If you're asking for scientific evidence I don't have any. I believe in the existence of the soul and it's control over the body because I believe that our experiences (and I'm not even sure we would even have "experiences" in the first place) would be radically different under physicalism/non-dualism than what they are now.

I wasn't asking for any particular type of evidence. I'm trying to figure out why you believe this. From my perspective, you seem to have assembled some pretty arbitrary assumptions to assert a position you apparently want to defend/sustain. I'm trying to figure out what makes it all hang together for you. I franky don't see how your position in any way actually differentiates physicalism (with the mind as an emergent property) from dualism (with the "soul" as an animating force). It's not making any sense to me, hence my questions.

[JimL]

Are you serious?!?

Comets don't appear to be stopped in the night sky?!?!

Comets don't appear in different areas of the night sky as they progress through their orbits?!?!

I know that comets don't appear that way, but apparently Matthew didn't. Try reading the biblical passage, "the star preceded them, until it came and stopped over the place where the child was."

Yeah, don't bother reading the article....you wouldn't understand it.

Try actually reading the bible before trying to match a scientific understanding to it.

It makes no sense to you because you don't understand the underlying concepts.

Not to mention, you have not read any to the data....

Actually I read about that years ago, and the reason it makes no sense is because I actually understand the underlying concepts and unlike you I understood that they don't match Matthews story. You're simply finding what you're looking for rather than looking for the truth.

Have you ever heard of the Dunning Kruger effect?

Yes I have, and have found that it is usually the accuser of others who actually suffer from it.

Seems like it may speak toward your cognitive abilities.

See above.

[element771]

I know that comets don't appear that way, but apparently Matthew didn't. Try reading the biblical passage, "the star preceded them, until it came and stopped over the place where the child was."

How fast do you think the Magi were traveling? You do realize that they didn't have airplanes back then right?

If you had read the piece you would know that that the star preceded them, changing its relative position in the night's sky nightly until it appeared to stop.

Actually I read about that years ago, and the reason it makes no sense is because I actually understand the underlying concepts and unlike you I understood that they don't match Matthews story.

Yeah ok. I am sure you read it but failed to mention that you did earlier in the thread.

Yes I have, and have found that it is usually the accuser of others who actually suffer from it.

You are resorting to the "I know you are but what I am" response?

Seems appropriate.

[carpedm9587]

How fast do you think the Magi were traveling? You do realize that they didn't have airplanes back then right?

If you had read the piece you would know that that the star preceded them, changing its relative position in the night's sky nightly until it appeared to stop.

So we know a comet won't actually "stop." And we know that, although a comet will change its relative position in the night sky as a function of its path, MOST of that change is a function of the rotation (and to some degree the orbit) of the earth. The change that is a function of the comet's path (and the earth's orbit) is best tracked by comparing position night-to-night at the same time of the night.

So we can hypothesize that the nightly change in the position of the comment could trace a path that more or less "pointed" to Bethlehem. But what phenomenon do you think would result in the impression of it "stopping?"

[element771]

So we know a comet won't actually "stop." And we know that, although a comet will change its relative position in the night sky as a function of its path, MOST of that change is a function of the rotation (and to some degree the orbit) of the earth. The change that is a function of the comet's path (and the earth's orbit) is best tracked by comparing position night-to-night at the same time of the night.

So we can hypothesize that the nightly change in the position of the comment could trace a path that more or less "pointed" to Bethlehem. But what phenomenon do you think would result in the impression of it "stopping?"

It has been a while since I read the paper or listened to the lecture. If I remember correctly, it has to do with the angle of orbit relative to the earth.

On a side, I am not saying that they are 100% correct or that this is a done deal. I just said that there was an interesting paper that gave a cool scientific explanation of what the star of Bethlehem could have been.

[carpedm9587]

It has been a while since I read the paper or listened to the lecture. If I remember correctly, it has to do with the angle of orbit relative to the earth.

On a side, I am not saying that they are 100% correct or that this is a done deal. I just said that there was an interesting paper that gave a cool scientific explanation of what the star of Bethlehem could have been.

Understood. I was mostly just curious.

And I do find myself fascinated by the attempts to apply scientific analysis to the varous miracle stories of the bible. The association of the Black Sea deluge (circa 5600) with the Noah/flood story, for example.