Empiricism

[Tassman]

No, absolutely not, the concept of soul/mind will never be irrelevant.

So, despite neuroscience’s ever-increasing understanding of consciousness as a material process - to the extent it is becoming both necessary and sufficient to explain human thought - you seem resolved to cling to your presupposition of an immaterial soul/mind come what may. Interesting!

Please explain what caused your heart's first beat, and what keeps it beating.

Are you suggesting a non-material explanation to explain one’s first heart beat? If so you are veering perilously close to the discredited doctrine of ‘vitalism’, which argues (without evidence) that living organisms depend on a non-material 'life-force' separate from physical and chemical processes. Please explain how the immaterial can impact upon the material in such a scenario; where's the nexus?

Please prove that this is one hundred percent true and not a belief based on observation and human logic/rationale.

Compared to what: “non-observation" and "non-logic”?

Science never claims proofs, merely facts which have been multiply tested and confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. Do you have a reliable "one hundred percent true" alternative?

Your argument is that there is no life? At all? And we are not life we are just intelligent star dust? That is absurd.

No, that’s not the argument.

When the scientists that hand down to you your ideologies say, "Life on Earth," or, "the possibility of Life on other planets," or, "Habitable planets," what do they mean? They're talking about dead supernovas that created the existence of an intelligent species?

Your use of the word “Creation” implies intention; this is not what’s being argued. The evidence indicates that the planets and life originated as a consequence of supernovas – not as the intentional creation by "dead supernovas" or by a deity! The latter notion dates from the pre-scientific era as an attempt to explain the otherwise seemingly inexplicable.

The elements which comprise life, i.e. carbon; nitrogen and oxygen etc, were synthesized by nuclear processes within stars. These elements were dispersed when the star exploded as a supernova at the end of its life. They were then incorporated into a new generation of stars. And then into the planets that form around stars. And then they were responsible for the life-forms that originate on the planets. And this includes the life-forms that originated on Earth evolving from the simplicity of single-celled organisms to the complexity of us animals via natural selection.

This process is well understood and beyond reasonable doubt. Why do you question it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE9dEAx5Sgw

For someone who trusts in man(this assumption is based on your faith in scientific teachings), you have no right to say what scriptural concept(s) were intended to be taken literally. You have not in the least bit, from what I'm gathering, indulged in Biblical knowledge at an intermediate level, therefore have no say in literal-ism within the text.

Correct! Evidence-based knowledge as opposed to faith in nonscientific religion-based presuppositions.

Don't mind if I do. This statement, "lion lying with the lamb," is not one to be overly analyzed, nor questioned. One should not accept it as metaphorical, or literal. Rather, understand that the nature of a new age given by a higher power, and authoritative deity, who is the ruler of galaxies, is one of supreme love and peace. In this world and its nature, the lion devours the lamb, but in a world where the glory of God rests indiscreetly, the lion will lie with lamb, and be unified with it as with it's own kind, therefore protect it, and comfort it.

So are you arguing that it's a ‘koan’ in the Zen Buddhist tradition, i.e. a paradoxical riddle designed for meditation, as opposed to a literal or metaphorical interpretation?

[seer]

Well what exactly do you mean by emergent property then? Are you saying that soul stuff exists in an atom? How does the soul/spirit/mind emerge if it is not a property of non-rational matter?

Like I said in the past James, I have no clue (perhaps like the magnet and its magnetic force). Just as science has no clue why/how matter/energy could produce consciousness. And like I also have been saying Jim, I see no compelling reason to assume that "nature did it."

As I said one can read into scripture whatever one wants to read, but that is not what the passage I quoted says. It says we are dust and shall return to dust, that we came from the ground and shall return to the ground. It says nothing about our having spirits/souls or their resurrection. Actually it says just the opposite, that we are just material beings which can only continue living if we eat the magic fruit from the tree of life planted in the midst of the Garden. It says the same in revelation, the fruit from the trees are a medicine for the resurrected people, and the waters there are life giving waters. Why would you need medicine and life giving waters in heaven?

Jim, I'm not going to get into theology. But like I said, Adam did return to dust but that does not preclude a future resurrection. God did not have to tell us everything, all at once. And it certainly was not a lie - Adam did return to dust.

[OingoBoingo]

The soul is the body, which God brought to life by giving it breath thus it became a living body/soul/being. It says nothing about breathing a soul/spirit into the body. It also doesn't say how he created the animals or man in Genesis 1. Its only specific with regards to man in Genesis 2.

I'm sorry, but that's just not how the Jewish sages see it. They saw in God's breath, not just that which animated the body, but that which imparted God's spirit.

Strong's concordance says that the same word "breath" nĕshamah, is translated breath, soul, and spirit, and there are parallels where that word is used in other passages:

Isaiah 42:5 Thus saith God Jehovah, he that created the heavens, and stretched them forth; he that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein

Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Also in Gen 1:27, it says, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.". If God is spirit, then the image of God is also spirit.

Rachel Adelman (assistant professor of the Hebrew Bible at Hebrew College in Boston) writes,

Source: The Return of the Repressed: Pirqe De-Rabbi Eliezer and the Pseudepigrapha

"And the Lord God formed the Man from the dust of the Earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..." (Gen. 2:7). According to the aggadic sources, human beings from their very inception are caught between their base desires and the consciousness of having been created in the image and likeness of God - for Adam was composed both of the dust of the Earth and the spirit of a divine exhalation (Gen. 2:7). The ambivalence between the divine ruah, spirit, and creaturely desire, yetzer, within human beings was thus inherent in Adam's creation.

© Copyright Original Source

Modern Rabbis appear to agree, http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...-is-a-Soul.htm

All of it seems to line up, as far as I can tell. Maybe you know something about this subject that I don't though.

[JimL]

I'm sorry, but that's just not how the Jewish sages see it. They saw in God's breath, not just that which animated the body, but that which imparted God's spirit.

Strong's concordance says that the same word "breath" nĕshamah, is translated breath, soul, and spirit, and there are parallels where that word is used in other passages:

Neshamah, as you admit above, literaly means "breath" and nowhere in the passage does it imply that it is was meant to be anything more than "breath".

Isaiah 42:5 Thus saith God Jehovah, he that created the heavens, and stretched them forth; he that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein

I don't think this passage helps your argument OB, since Isaiah obviously makes a distinction between "breath" and "spirit" wherein the passage in dispute mentions only the one, i.e. "breath".

Job 32:8 [I]But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

This is an assertion made at a later time, but again the passage in question says nothing about a spirit, it merely says the 'breath of life" which we all know is understood as the air that we breath.

Also in Gen 1:27, it says, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.". If God is spirit, then the image of God is also spirit.

No, an image is not the same as that which it is an image of.

Rachel Adelman (assistant professor of the Hebrew Bible at Hebrew College in Boston) writes,

Source: The Return of the Repressed: Pirqe De-Rabbi Eliezer and the Pseudepigrapha

"And the Lord God formed the Man from the dust of the Earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..." (Gen. 2:7). According to the aggadic sources, human beings from their very inception are caught between their base desires and the consciousness of having been created in the image and likeness of God - for Adam was composed both of the dust of the Earth and the spirit of a divine exhalation (Gen. 2:7). The ambivalence between the divine ruah, spirit, and creaturely desire, yetzer, within human beings was thus inherent in Adam's creation.

© Copyright Original Source

Modern Rabbis appear to agree, http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...-is-a-Soul.htm

All of it seems to line up, as far as I can tell. Maybe you know something about this subject that I don't though.

Well of course they would make these assertions or interpretations, it is their belief, their agenda, but the point is that the passage itself says nothing of an immaterial spirit being breathed into the body, it merely says 'breath". Rachel Adelman's interpretation creates an ambivalance where there is none. If the essense of man is a spirit which is merely housed in the Physical body, then the physical body is nothing but the house and can't be responsible for creaturely desires.

[Tassman]

Like I said in the past James, I have no clue (perhaps like the magnet and its magnetic force). Just as science has no clue why/how matter/energy could produce consciousness. And like I also have been saying Jim, I see no compelling reason to assume that "nature did it."

…except that to date every alleged supernatural occurrence has had, upon examination, a natural explanation so why would you see “no compelling reason to assume that "nature did it" - especially given neuroscience’s ever-increasing understanding of consciousness as a material process? The odds would seem to favor “nature did it” rather than “God did it”.

[JimL]

Like I said in the past James, I have no clue (perhaps like the magnet and its magnetic force). Just as science has no clue why/how matter/energy could produce consciousness. And like I also have been saying Jim, I see no compelling reason to assume that "nature did it."

Okay, you have no clue what you mean by emergent property and science doesn't understand consciousness, but consciousness is a term defining a known property, spirit is not, and science doesn't make unfounded assumptions about the reality or existence of things that there is no knowledge of.

Jim, I'm not going to get into theology. But like I said, Adam did return to dust but that does not preclude a future resurrection. God did not have to tell us everything, all at once. And it certainly was not a lie - Adam did return to dust.

Yes, the part about returning to dust was not a lie since thats is exactly what we do. But the passage says nothing about a spirit or of a resurrection of a spirit, or of a physical body. It actually says just the opposite, i.e. that we will not live forever.

[seer]

Okay, you have no clue what you mean by emergent property and science doesn't understand consciousness, but consciousness is a term defining a known property, spirit is not, and science doesn't make unfounded assumptions about the reality or existence of things that there is no knowledge of.

Yes, I do suggest that there is something more than a material cause and effect, but I am not the only one. The problem is that we do now know enough about the brain and it is not looking good for the materialists. That is why Sam Harris said that even in principle we can not account for consciousness, here is an interesting quote:

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6] Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness. And no description of C-fibers or pain-avoiding behavior will bring the subjective reality into view....

...And I believe that no description of unconscious complexity will fully account for it. It seems to me that just as “something” and “nothing,” however juxtaposed, can do no explanatory work, an analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t....fZKdOAj0.dpuf

It is becoming clear that the more we know about the physical brain the less that the idea of consciousness fits in.

[IamLives]

First, I want to say that I think you're awesome Tassman, I wish we could sit down in person, drink coffee, and debate all night, alright let's continue to exchange thoughts/beliefs/etc.

So, despite neuroscience’s ever-increasing understanding of consciousness as a material process - to the extent it is becoming both necessary and sufficient to explain human thought - you seem resolved to cling to your presupposition of an immaterial soul/mind come what may. Interesting!

There is no "pre-suppositon(s)." Only the infallible Word of God that I stand on. Quite a firm foundation as opposed to Science, you know the study that changes as much as the tides do. My hypothesis was merely suggestive of... that beyond reasonable doubt, there is and will always be relevancy regarding the soul/mind, Science will never disprove of such a matter.

Are you suggesting a non-material explanation to explain one’s first heart beat? If so you are veering perilously close to the discredited doctrine of ‘vitalism’, which argues (without evidence) that living organisms depend on a non-material 'life-force' separate from physical and chemical processes. Please explain how the immaterial can impact upon the material in such a scenario; where's the nexus?

Without any explanation (what was asked for), you answer the question with questions, that my friend is interesting. My claim would simply be that life is the explanation of life, as opposed to a destructive end (death) having a consequential outbreak of living things. God is the origin of life, God is life, within our nature, it is the living man and woman that spawn new life, a fair explanation, something you can not give, or refuse to.

Science never claims proofs, merely facts which have been multiply tested and confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

Science claims facts? No, Science claims evidence, whether or not it is sound data, it claims humanistic reasoning, approvable description, which no Scientist can claim as true/factual.
On the other hand, you have made it clear that you can not prove your assertion; I mean Science's assertion, case settled.

Do you have a reliable "one hundred percent true" alternative?

I have the one hundred percent true and reliable knowledge/wisdom found within the Bibliotheca.

No, that’s not the argument.

You have yet to give the argument, you can't just say, "Science this," and "Science that," and expect everyone to yield in their beliefs that surpass the logic of Scientific reasoning. Please explain, or pass on the argument, if it can not hold because it is Scientific, then leave it alone, otherwise load the cannons, and fire at me something somewhat hard to refute.

This process is well understood and beyond reasonable doubt. Why do you question it?

It is right to question man, it is wrong to question God. So why wouldn't I question something nonfactual?
Isaiah says, "Let us reason together," so you may have arguments remotely solid, however if there is no glory given to the Creator, then your arguments can not hold, they have no foundation. The fact that you have brought into this debate evolution, unfortunately has a consequence; you have lost, evolution can not stand as the basis of our understanding of life/existence. It is surprising that people still argue it after it has been debunked/disproved of.

So are you arguing that it's a ‘koan’ in the Zen Buddhist tradition, i.e. a paradoxical riddle designed for meditation, as opposed to a literal or metaphorical interpretation?

I think you should re-read what I posted. There is no mention of "paradoxical riddle," "meditation," or "koan." I was saying don't be critical toward the statement "lion lying with the lamb." I just gave you an explanation of it. If a discussion was to be made regarding whether or not this passage is literal or metaphorical, this would require a completely new thread. Given the contents of the current thread, it be best we not veer off into such a discussion.

[JimL]

Yes, I do suggest that there is something more than a material cause and effect, but I am not the only one. The problem is that we do now know enough about the brain and it is not looking good for the materialists. That is why Sam Harris said that even in principle we can not account for consciousness, here is an interesting quote:



It is becoming clear that the more we know about the physical brain the less that the idea of consciousness fits in.

Well, first off there is definitly evidence that consciousness exists in the physical world. But I know that is not exactly what he meant. Obviously what he meant was that there is no evidence that consciousness is a property of the physical world. That doesn't mean that it isn't. Just because he believes that an analysis of purely physical processes will never yeild a result doesn't mean that it won't. My personal opinion is that it is, that consciousness is the way that the information processing of the brain feels like. I know, we have no evidence of that, but we have no evidence of what it is one way or the other.
As for your conclusion seer, I would suggest that we know way to little about the brain at this point to make such assertions.

[Tassman]

First, I want to say that I think you're awesome Tassman, I wish we could sit down in person, drink coffee, and debate all night, alright let's continue to exchange thoughts/beliefs/etc.

Thank you.

There is no "pre-suppositon(s)." Only the infallible Word of God that I stand on. Quite a firm foundation as opposed to Science, you know the study that changes as much as the tides do.

The bolded IS presupposition.

My hypothesis was merely suggestive of... that beyond reasonable doubt, there is and will always be relevancy regarding the soul/mind, Science will never disprove of such a matter.

Science is not required to refute propositions for which there is insufficient evidence.

Without any explanation (what was asked for), you answer the question with questions, that my friend is interesting. My claim would simply be that life is the explanation of life, as opposed to a destructive end (death) having a consequential outbreak of living things. God is the origin of life, God is life, within our nature, it is the living man and woman that spawn new life, a fair explanation, something you can not give, or refuse to.

Again, this is your presupposition; I see no good reason to accept a belief system based solely on personal testimony.

Science claims facts? No, Science claims evidence, whether or not it is sound data, it claims humanistic reasoning, approvable description, which no Scientist can claim as true/factual.

Science “claims facts” which are supported by evidence. E.g. it is a demonstrable “FACT” that light travels at a constant, finite speed of 186,000 mi/sec. This has been multiply tested and shown to be true in every instance, although it is falsifiable in principle. The potential of falsification is a hallmark of true science and is applicable to ALL established scientific theories including the likes of Quantum Theory, Electromagnetism, Evolution or Gravity Theory. Hence, while scientific theories cannot be deemed to be absolutely proven, the established ones have all been verified to date and most likely will continue to be so.

And given the lack of substantiated evidence to the contrary, “humanistic reasoning” is the only tool we have.

On the other hand, you have made it clear that you can not prove your assertion; I mean Science's assertion, case settled.

I have never claimed “proofs” for scientific knowledge. See above

I have the one hundred percent true and reliable knowledge/wisdom found within the Bibliotheca.

No, you do not have “one hundred percent true and reliable evidence”. All you have are your religion-based beliefs.

You have yet to give the argument, you can't just say, "Science this," and "Science that," and expect everyone to yield in their beliefs that surpass the logic of Scientific reasoning. Please explain, or pass on the argument, if it can not hold because it is Scientific, then leave it alone, otherwise load the cannons, and fire at me something somewhat hard to refute.

My argument was not that “we are just intelligent star dust”, which is what you misleadingly characterized my argument to be.

It is right to question man, it is wrong to question God. So why wouldn't I question something nonfactual?
Isaiah says, "Let us reason together," so you may have arguments remotely solid, however if there is no glory given to the Creator, then your arguments can not hold, they have no foundation.

It is reasonable to question scientific facts and it is equally reasonable to accept these facts when they are supported by empirically verified evidence, such as the examples I gave (which interestingly you snipped).

“…stars owe their light to the energy released by nuclear fusion reactions at their cores. These are the very same reactions which created chemical elements like carbon or iron - the building blocks which make up the world around us”, including all life on Earth – and throughout the entire universe if, as hypothesized, life exists on other planets.

http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=52

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/star-in-you.html

As for “questioning God”, this is meaningless given that AFAIK God doesn't exist.

The fact that you have brought into this debate evolution, unfortunately has a consequence; you have lost, evolution can not stand as the basis of our understanding of life/existence. It is surprising that people still argue it after it has been debunked/disproved of.

This is an incorrect statement. Evolution is established scientific theory and accepted by virtually every scientist and related discipline in the world. It is only dismissed by those with a religious agenda for reasons related to personal belief systems rather than objective scientific inquiry – as you yourself are demonstrating.

I think you should re-read what I posted. There is no mention of "paradoxical riddle," "meditation," or "koan." I was saying don't be critical toward the statement "lion lying with the lamb." I just gave you an explanation of it. If a discussion was to be made regarding whether or not this passage is literal or metaphorical, this would require a completely new thread. Given the contents of the current thread, it be best we not veer off into such a discussion.

With regard to the biblical reference of a predatory, carnivorous beast like a lion lying down alongside a passive herbivore like a lamb without devouring it, there are only a limited number of possible explanations and, as AFAICT, you have ruled them all out. You have dismissed the literal interpretation, the allegorical one (which for me is the most reasonable) and now you have dismissed the possibly of it being a ‘koan’, i.e. the paradoxical Zen Buddhist technique of meditation, e.g. “contemplating the sound of one hand clapping”. So you are not left with much.

[seer]

Well, first off there is definitly evidence that consciousness exists in the physical world. But I know that is not exactly what he meant. Obviously what he meant was that there is no evidence that consciousness is a property of the physical world. That doesn't mean that it isn't. Just because he believes that an analysis of purely physical processes will never yeild a result doesn't mean that it won't. My personal opinion is that it is, that consciousness is the way that the information processing of the brain feels like. I know, we have no evidence of that, but we have no evidence of what it is one way or the other.
As for your conclusion seer, I would suggest that we know way to little about the brain at this point to make such assertions.

Jim, did you read the whole link? We do know a great deal about the brain, and the problem is that we are not going to learn anything new - it is all electrochemical interaction. We may lean more about what part of the brain does what - but that is just more of the same electrochemical processes. Sam Harris understands this, that is why he said even in principle there is no reason why consciousness would rise from such a process.

[JimL]

Jim, did you read the whole link? We do know a great deal about the brain, and the problem is that we are not going to learn anything new - it is all electrochemical interaction. We may lean more about what part of the brain does what - but that is just more of the same electrochemical processes. Sam Harris understands this, that is why he said even in principle there is no reason why consciousness would rise from such a process.

Whether we learn how it works is not the point. Sam Harris may understand that the brain is all electochemical processes but he has no idea what consciousness is or whether or not it is a property of the immense complexity of those electrochemical processes. To me consciousness, and this is a guess, is nothing more than what it feels like for the physical brain to see, to smell, to taste, to hear, to touch or in general how it feels to experience internally the external reality. But it's not conclusive, consciousness is not something in and of itself that can be seen, so we are free to believe what we want about it.

[Tassman]

Jim, did you read the whole link? We do know a great deal about the brain, and the problem is that we are not going to learn anything new

You don’t know this. Science never says we can never know. Clarke's First Law: “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

- it is all electrochemical interaction. We may lean more about what part of the brain does what - but that is just more of the same electrochemical processes. Sam Harris understands this, that is why he said even in principle there is no reason why consciousness would rise from such a process.

Sam Harris doubts we will ever fully understand the process, but he acknowledges that most of his colleagues do not agree. Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges naturally from unconscious complexity in ways not fully understood as yet, but with a reasonable expectation they will be understood in future. There are compelling reasons for believing this, namely that the only signs of consciousness in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves.

Furthermore, Harris, as an avowed atheist and causal determinist is certainly not allowing for the possibility that God may “fill the gap” as you seem to be implying. I would have thought Sam Harris was the last person for you to quote in support of your cause.

[seer]

But it's not conclusive, consciousness is not something in and of itself that can be seen, so we are free to believe what we want about it.

Yes, and as with the appearance of this universe, the appearance of biological life, we don't have to assume that consciousness is the result of a strictly materialistic processes.

[Leonhard]

You don’t know this. Science never says we can never know. Clarke's First Law: “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

It is impossible for any closed physical system to increase or decrease in internal energy.