by JamesG 14 Replies latest jw friends
I saw an earlier post on one persons anguish over contemplating whether the soul and spirit in our bodies truly exists.
The Soul and Spirit DOES exist.
Just go to a Popeyes Chicken after a Southern Baptist Church Service.
James.
Edited by - JamesG on 10 June 2002 5:59:11
Very good indeed! I agree with you fully that the soul and spirit do indeed exist. But I learned a long time ago that it is fruitless to debate the existence of God, or the spirit, or the soul. I don't believe that the existence of these things can be proved, or disproved, with logic. Even so, I do have a few observations regarding materialism, determ inism, reductionism, and the mechanistic outlook and view point.
To me, the very existence of mind disproves materialism. To say that mind emerged from matter explains nothing. If the universe were merely a mechanism and mind were unapart from matter, we would never have two differing interpretations of any observed phenomenon. If men were only machines, we would react more or less uniformly to a material universe. Individuality, much less personality, would be nonexistent.
The inconsistency of the mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and we only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. The materialistic dismay of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of mind and spirit in the mind of the scientist whose very superm aterial insight post ulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe. A machine cannot think, much less think about thinking.
If this were only a material universe, material man would never be able to arrive at the concept of the mechanistic character of such an exclusively material existence. This very mechanistic concept of the universe is in itself a nonmaterial phenomenon of mind, and all mind is of nonmaterial origin, no matter how thoroughly it may appear to be materially conditioned and mechanistically controlled. The partially evolved mental mechanism of man is not over endowed with consistency and wisdom. Mans conceit often outruns his reason and eludes his logic, as we have seen.
If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine.
If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to motivate the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supe achine status. If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation. Materialists measure, religionists evaluate value.
If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of the self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self conscious mechanist, just as a person must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts.
It is foolish to presume that an automation could conceive a philosophy of automatism, and ridiculous that it should presume to fo such a concept of other and fellow automations!
The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man.
Edited by - Francois on 10 June 2002 8:25:50
Edited by - Francois on 10 June 2002 8:26:57
Edited by - Francois on 10 June 2002 8:28:44 - All above edits for spelling
Edited by - Francois on 10 June 2002 8:33:54 - This one, too, and any following: fat fingers.
Edited by - Francois on 10 June 2002 8:35:43
Edited by - Francois on 10 June 2002 11:48:45
Edited by - Francois on 10 June 2002 11:53:43
Hi JamesG and Francois: Your two posts are excellent examples of the a concise verses a detailed explainaton. I admit the 'popeye' comment went over my head. I must have missed that episode.
What I think that many miss when discussing concepts of 'spirit', or 'soul', or God is this:
1. Because science has disproven, often by accident, many religious concepts, some conclude that all religious concepts must be in error.
2. While science cannot prove the existence of the spiritual or God, nor can it disprove these, science has proven the unusual phenomenon beyond our physical world does exist, but science cannot yet explained it.
I personally don't know. I think it is wise to keep an open mind to possibilities, to think outside the box, and wait and see what science will discover that may greatly overhaul our thinking.
One thing for sure, ever since the end of the 'Dark Ages' human social condition and scientific knowledged have been evolving with increasing speed ... just in my own short lifetime, our technical and social evolution has moved by leaps and bounds ...
...I believe in the next ten to fifteen years - well within my lifetime - we will see advances that will utterly shock all of us. Much will still be the same, but much more will be radically different ... and I can't wait to see what happens ...
Virtual Reality, for one, like the advanced Holodeck on Star Trek ... yes, interactive entertainment ... don't just sit there and merely read Sherlock Holmes, live it! ... Look out future ... he we come ...
And along the way ... possibly by shear accident ... science my stumble upon God and find our souls.
Edited by - Amazing on 10 June 2002 9:35:10
Francois,
I see you make a number of assertions, but you don't provide any arguments to support your conclusion. The conclusion seems to be a priori from your part, since you have not put forth a single argument in its favour. I understand that you want to believe in an immaterial soul. So do I. But considiering that all the direct thought processes we know are directly dependent on physical components in the brain, how can you sustain such a belief?
Symbol manipulation and memory storage may not be all that is required for a mind to exist, but we do know they are necessary. And both of these exist in the physical brain. Do you seriously think there is a physical component in the brain that interacts with the immetarial spirit/soul? Or is it some component in the immaterial component that interacts with the physical brain? Do you think that if we knew everything that happened in the brain, we would see that the mind was immetarial, since some undetectable source was actually making e.g. synnapses trigger and changing the brain's physical makeup continually?
And, while I'm at it, does the immaterial mind contain a full backup at all times of our physical memory, to make sure that the immaterial soul can retain our memories when the physical brain decomposes?
What is your comments to the Turing Test criterium for determining what is a mind and what is not?
Isn't it a philosophical problem for you that you first deny that mechanistic processes can create a mind (whatever that is), and then affirm that somehow a 'spiritual machine' can form a mind, dispite the fact that none of us knows what a 'spirit' or 'soul' is in the first place?
- Jan
...I believe in the next ten to fifteen years - well within my lifetime - we will see advances that will utterly shock all of us. Much will still be the same, but much more will be radically different ... and I can't wait to see what happens ...
Amazing,
I have heard many express that thought. Yet, it is a fact that even though massive progress have been made in the last 30-40 years -- more than ever before in history of science -- we haven't had a single major revolution. Basically, since plate tectonics in geology science has been directly cumulative and new discoveries have confirmed the basic framework of earlier work.
An interesting view on the furture of science is expressed by John Horgan, who already in 1966 argued that science was coming to an end. Nothing has happened since then to prove him wrong. In this interesting essay, Horgan says:
"I believe that this map of reality that scientists have constructed, and this narrative of creation, from the big bang through the present, is essentially true. It will thus be as viable 100 or even 1,000 years from now as it is today. I also believe that, given how far science has already come, and given the limits constraining further research, science will be hard-pressed to make any truly profound additions to the knowledge it has already generated. Further research may yield no more great revelations or revolutions but only incremental returns."
I think Horgan is on to something here. I still think we may have one revolution ahead of us, when we understand what the mind is, and isn't. Horgan is not convinced:
"But neuroscience will not deliver what so many philosophers and scientists yearn for. It will not solve all the ancient philosophical mysteries relating to the mindthe mind-body problem, the problem of free will, the solipsism paradox, and so on. Nor will neuroscience demonstrate that consciousness is somehow a necessary component of existence, which is an idea that is alluring not only to New Agers but also to scientists and philosophers who should know better. This is a material world. We have all seen bodies without minds, but only psychics and psychotics have seen minds without bodies. The universe existed for billions of years before we came along, and it will continue to exist for eons after we and our minds are gone."
I for one, am not fully convinced either way. But I am pretty confident that the basic framework of our scientific understanding of the universe will still remain pretty much the same 100 or even 1000 years from now. Darwin's and Einstein's works will still stand as long as science stands.Lots of progress will be made, but I simply do not think any of the major scientific theories of the 20th century will ever be rejected, ie proven wrong. And why not? Because they are essentially correct.
- Jan
But considiering that all the direct thought processes we know are directly dependent on physical components in the brain, how can you sustain such a belief?
If a man was dead for 3 days and FROZEN upon death....then he is thawed out and he is brought back to life by medical science somehow.........would he still have a memory? A personality?
Perhaps this is a bad analogy but I do see Jans point. I also see Franks point.
What about.....spirituality? A mother wakes up at night at 4 in the morning because she feels something happened to her son who lives 1000 miles away. She calls to find out he was killed in an automobile accident. She KNEW something was wrong......how? What in her brain cells would KNOW that.
Heres another. Two twins seperated at birth that grew up apart from one another not knowing the other existed until they are grown.
They finally learn they are twins and seek to find each other. When they do they find these similarities:
They married a girl with the same name, named there kids the same, drive the same type of car, wear the same namebrand shoe. What in there BRAIN made this happen? They were each a product of a DIFFERENT enviorment.
How does my dog KNOW when I'm only THINKING about giving her a bath,,,, and she runs outside?
I realize these are lame excuses to try and prove SPIRITUALITY inside of man.....however....there are weird things like this in life we can't explain.....yet they ARE reality.
I continue to believe that science is headed for a crisis that will change the world.
Specifically, it will come from a failure of reductionism, associated with genetics, the mind
and quantum physics. The process of reducing effects to smaller and smaller causes must
ultimately fail because one runs out of causes! Even noted skeptics admit that the universe
must be arbitrary at its most basic level - at that point, two choices are possible:
Our world works because it is linked to other dimensions (Plato) or
Things "just are" - however I find acceptance of this "just is" view little different from
attributing things to magic or God(s).
There's a story about someone who thought the earth was held up in heaven by being
supported on the back of a turtle. When asked what the turtle sat on, the reply was
"It's just more turtles all the way down!". That, in a nutshell, is the problem.
metatron
SPIRIT OR SOUL, DO THEY SURVIVE WITH INTELLIGENCE AFTER DEATH? Ezekial 18:4 says that the soul that is sinning will die, and Ecclesiastes 9:5 says the dead are unconscious, which would seem to prove that the human soul or spirit does not continue living after death and hold consciousness. However, even though true that people body's of imperfect flesh die, might the energy-like spirit of that person go from being unconscious to a state of consciousness as the following points also appear to show. At least as you start reading this you may equate soul to the fleshly body with energy-like spirit to move it akin to a battery being charged to live by electricity, and you may equate spirit as that energy- or electricity-like substance that may be inside and moving a body or else gone free from a body back to God who decides its ultimate destiny.
First note that at Matthew 10:28 Jesus Christ speaks of both the body and the soul which shows they are different. At John 8:56 Christ says "Abraham your father rejoiced greatly in the prospect of seeing my day, and he saw it and rejoiced." Since Abraham died centuries before Jesus said this, how could Jesus say that Abraham "saw it and rejoiced" unless his spirit was resurrected and did see and rejoice over Jesus? At times the word for soul clearly can also refer to not just the fleshly body but also mean spirit by itself. For example Isaiah 14:9-17 says that Sheol, the Hebrew word for the condition of death which some translations also render as hell "become agitated," say things, and can see you. This passage also clearly shows that at least at some point during death the soul or spirit is given consciousness and acts intelligently.
Revelation 6:9-11 says that slain souls cry out, which might be metaphorical or symbolic since much of Revelation is symbolic but to be reasonable and honest it also might mean exactly what it says, that slain souls or the spirit which survived the dying of bodies can communicate. Although for example Genesis 35:18 says the soul goes out of a person, 1 Kings 17:21 Elijah asks that God please return a dead child's soul to its body, which request was granted. If a human has no spirit existing after death of the body, why did Stephen just before death pray for Jesus to "receive my spirit" (Acts 7:59), since it would not be possible for Jesus to receive Stephens spirit if Stephans human spirit ceased to exist after his body died? The fact that "living souls" is sometimes used in Genesis to speak of animals in no way diminishes the fact that soul is also used independently of fleshly bodies, more in referal to spirit which has been given back its intelligence.
Various verses tell us that the perfect Christ did have a conscious spirit or soul which survived death of his body and is now intelligent in heaven. Revelation speaks of a symbolic or literal 144,000 spirit beings and or myriads and myriads of angels who are beings acting intelligently and housed not in flesh but spirit. So, yes, soul or spirit does survive death and is intelligent or definitely can become so again if and when God so wills it. If this seems hard to believe then imagine what a person born in 1850 would think about modern television on which the moving images and voices of deceased movie stars such as Elvis, Lucy, Marilyn Monroe and John Wayne are "resurrected." Or what he would think of modern cloning. For more free, emailed Bible literature: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jahchristian
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reformjwsandfriends
The brain is necessary for a "local " consciousness. Agree? Neuro-science shows evidence that changes in the brain accompany changes in consciousness ( to levels described as non local or universal ). A premature conclusion is that the brain "causes" consciousness, therefore consciousness comes from the brain and is in the brain. This is a study of the brain . It is not a study of consciousness. Using the example of "seeing", is it the eye that sees or the brain or the consciousness ? In fact, all three are needed to see. And that is the world we live in. The eye did not cause the brain did it ? Then why conclude that the brain caused consciousness? All three are needed to "see". The study of the eye shows it to be mechanical and material. The study of the brain shows it to be strangely electro-chemical and material. But the study of consciousness is elusive because it is the participating "medium" in which the eye and brain are "seeing". There is no "causal " relationship between the eye , the brain, and consciousness. All three must be present to "see ". If you try to establish causation where will it stop. You will have to include "EVERTHING". But science is forever stopping only to start again and that is why , contrary to some thinkers, science will never end because the pursuit of causation ultimatly includes EVERYTHING. When consciousness is studied directly , its nature is self evident. It is both local and universal.
Jan:
Yes, it's true that I want to believe in an immaterial soul. Let's be clear about what I mean when I say soul. First, I believe that there is indeed a spark of actual divinity in the human mind. Can I prove it? No. Can anyone disprove it? No. It's one of those faith things which cannot be measured I'm afraid.
I believe that a soul (only potentially immortal) is the relationship between the mortal mind and the indwelling spirit. It would contain the essence of the human life and characteristics resulting from its relationship with the divine.
I have for a long time been under the impression that you not only do not believe in the soul (among other things), but that you don't want to, either. However, your response here suggests a person who is ready to leap, but cannot decide in which direction.
Also, I note that you seem to lump together the idea of mind and the idea of soul. To me, these things are separate and distinct. Thus if we knew everything that happened in the brain (which is another way of stating that we had measured everything that happened in the brain), would we see that the mind was immaterial? I don't think so.
Here's what I think about mind, if you're interested. We started out here most likely as nothing more than a smart molecule. Where did the molecule come from? Life implantation? Probably. Life evolved. Single-cell organisms developed. Life continued to evolve through all the stages with which you are no doubt familiar. At first there was a spinal canal and later the evolving simple brain. Some of these forms are successful and in these forms evolution has apparently stopped, as in the alligator and other saurians. There's plenty of examples. However, in humans, evolution continued making a brain that was more and more complex. This compexity eventually resulted in electrical activity of a strength and type upon which a segment of cosmic mind was able to operate, and operate as an individualized segmentation under the control of the human brain. I think you will likely have problems with this idea, since it's not measurable. At least we have no way of measuring it right now. Is there any other way of proving it? No. Can anyone disprove it? No.
Is there a backup? If the scheme in which I have faith in proves to be true, then all of everything in the human life which has survival value will be retained. How? I don't know. Proof? Same answers as above.
As far as I'm concerned, Alan Turing set a test for determining programmer cleverness - and not much else.
And no, I do not have a philosophical problem with this position. I admit that faith must needs pay a part in it. And that is an uncomfortable fact, or should be, for anyone of any sort of intellectual attainment. Faith is hard to deal with.
However, that being said, we seem to have no problem with faith in science. And many people seem to think that the role of science is to discover truth. I'm sure you're aware that science does no such thing. Science is concerned with making models that describe observation. Newton did so, and four hundred years later, we're still teaching Newtonian physics, including his theory of gravity, in schools. However, Einstein also did so, and while he was at it he said, "There isn't any gravity. Observation merely says that certain behaviors are accounted for by the fact that space is curved." And both systems still are taught side by side. What can be said about that? One thing that can be said about that is that Einsteinian physics did indeed change the basic framework of science. And it only took about four hundred years to do so. In the meantime, people like you and I were pretty smug it must be admitted about how Newtonian physics explained everything and how it provided an unchangeable framework.
We are so close to the issue, our perspective is so limited in scope and depth, it is an error in my view to make hard and fast statements about what is possible and not, what is changeable and not, John Horgan notwithstanding. I think that is a conceit we'd all be much better off without. And less embarrassed in the end, too. Horgan may be long dead before the next framework-changing leap in human insight occurs.
Finally my positions my seem a priori, but that's just the nature of faith, I'm afraid. I can't prove that a spark of divinity dwells in my mind or that it doesn't. There's just no point in arguing about it. However, some of the experiences found in Moody's "Life After Life," and other of his works, plus the work of other people in the same area and concerning the same phenomena do seem to point to something very immaterial transactions in the near-death realm.
When I fell 25 feet from a tree three and a half years ago, and damn near died on the spot, I experienced some things that can't be proven, only described. But they are of such a personal nature, and so totally unnprovable, I really don't care to discuss them other than to say that they are confirming of the idea that there is very much in the universe we can't see, can't measure, don't understand, and which would turn our current ideas about our genius inside out. You just have to experience it to understand. It's not open to description in word symbols.
It's an interesting subject. Unfortunately, the essential arguments on either side seem as if they must be taken on faith. I have faith thus far in the immaterial world. Others have faith in science. We don't know where quantuum physics is likely to take us, but we have faith it's certainly going somewhere. What's interesting about quantuum physics is that it also seems to affirm a certain immaterial characteristic to the universe.
Frank
