If you reject the existence of the soul then you are an Animist?

by Seraphim23 149 Replies latest jw friends

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    No offense, but I have no idea what you're ranting about, or what trick I'm supposed to be pulling.

    Yes, I did suggest that the usage of the word "consciousness" is unclear in the sense that I do not believe the definition is meaningful. There are underlying assumptions to it, like the old assumption by mankind that he was different from the animals in being the only thinking creature, and the only creature that felt real emotions. Though few today would uphold those ideas, you seem to believe that consciousness is clearly definable just by sticking your finger on the word on the dictionary page and reading what it says and then saying, "QED, it is clear after all."

    I asked you to define "aware" because I wanted to show that it's not a meaningful word on which to rest the definition of "conscious".

  • scotoma
    scotoma

    Are some of you really ignorant of the differences between living things and non-living things?

    Non-living things continue moving in the same direction unless some exterior force acts on it.

    Living organisms are sensitive to their nutritional needs and their need to avoid danger.

    Living things change directions based on their needs.

    Non-living things don't have needs.

    If you break a rock in two that rock ceases to exist and you have two rocks with similar composition but separate trajectories.

    Living things can be cut in pieces and it still has its cellular identity.

    Living things can choose the direction in which it moves. Rocks can't choose direction. If a rock is impacted by another rock it will either move in the opposite direction of the impact force or it will break apart and no longer exist.

    Living organsims maintain their identity over time even though the materials that it is made of come and go.

    You also can't speak about a brain in a bottle. That is pure fiction - not even science fiction. Brains need to be viewed as having a body connected to it. That body has needs and the brain, along with muscle, sense organs, and guts each serve their part in a functioning organism.

    Organisms differ from rocks in kind not degree.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    Living things change directions based on their needs.

    Non-living things don't have needs.

    Are you forgetting about plants, which typically don't move?

    Living things can choose the direction in which it moves. Rocks can't choose direction. If a rock is impacted by another rock it will either move in the opposite direction of the impact force or it will break apart and no longer exist.

    My assertion is simply that people are also guided by physical forces, just like rocks. If something jumps at you, you react to it. Action and reaction.

    Living organsims maintain their identity over time even though the materials that it is made of come and go.

    It's not that simple, I'm afraid. By some ways of measuring, most of our body is non-human. If an alien was observing us and classified us as "walking water-bags which transport a mixture of bacteria", and then they observed us later and saw that some of the cultures of bacteria were different due to a change in diet, would they still think we were the same organism?

    You also can't speak about a brain in a bottle. That is pure fiction - not even science fiction. Brains need to be viewed as having a body connected to it. That body has needs and the brain, along with muscle, sense organs, and guts each serve their part in a functioning organism.

    Sure, and the nerves that propagate information to the brain are the input to the equation. The brain reacts according to the way it's built to react to each kind of sensory stimulation, and then we produce output accordingly, like moving our legs to get away from a danger that we saw.

    If you simplify the idea of an animal down to the single-celled level, the single cell is reacting to light it senses with its eyespot, and then waving its tail to go towards it. How is this different than a natural self-sustaining chemical reaction? The stimulus of light on one side of its body will cause it to react predictably, just like we can predict the results of mixing two chemicals.

    Historically people have believed that we are special, that we choose how to react to things. I'm suggesting that this is a form of magical thinking, and that a human is just as predictable as a rock rolling downhill (assuming one is aware of all the factors that their brain is influenced by). This reduces consciousness to a form of input/output taking place on a chemical level.

  • cofty
    cofty

    I am opting out of this. The OP is so deliberately convoluted that any response can be blithely dismissed.

    Arguing that a rejection of soul/spirit amounts to it's very opposite - animism - is just obtuse.

    I have no interest in pondering the consiousness of a rock.

    Don't ask a question unless you can clearly define it in one simple sentence that uses words with their common meanings.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Apog - you are asking some interesting questions. It would make a good thread. I just don't want to engage any more on a thread that starts as this one did.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    Heh, okay. Well no one will force you to participate if you don't like the premise, but I thought it was a fairly reasonable question. I think Seraphim just wanted to know where the "magic" was; if consciousness is something special, and there's no soul or spirit, then where is it? I gave the only answer I could think of.

  • Seraphim23
    Seraphim23

    It seems we have similar views Apognophos, with the exception that I think magic exist for the soul/consciousness and you do not. I must say that you seem more consistent, logical and intelligent in your materialist, and if you don’t mind me saying so `atheist` views than most atheists in this thread.

  • cofty
    cofty

    It wasn't asked as a genuine question.

    There is lots of fascinating information about consciousness and how it emerges from neural complexity. Dan Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" would be a good place to start.

    Seraphim's premise is - You guys can't prove consciousness is a function of the brain, you are just like animists - therefore Jesus.

  • Seraphim23
    Seraphim23

    Not at all cofty! The belief in Jesus cannot be reached by a discussion of this scope, or subject matter! Also my position would be more along the lines of, you shouldn’t even believe in consciousness!

  • cofty
    cofty

    Also my position would be more along the lines of, you shouldn’t even believe in consciousness!

    Then you still have all your work ahead of you.

    Drop this silly notion of animism and start again.

    First read Dennett's book and see if it answers your question.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit