Posts by Viviane

149

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

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

the classic debate between those who believe that consciousness is merely the result of the operation of the brain, and those who believe that it is apart from the brain, like the idea of a soul or the classic dualistic distinction between mind and body, is a well-known one.. however the thought has occurred that when people try to convince me that the soul cannot be real; soul in the sense of consciousness being a separate thing to the operation of the brain, then really the materialistic non spiritual view is in fact a rehash of animism, strange as that might sound.. animism is the idea that soul, spirit, consciousness, or whatever it might be called, exists in plants, animals, things, objects, places or basically in everything and anything in the material world.

the view of some is that very primitive cultures had this wide category of spiritual belief, which eventually evolved into the all the religions, faiths and spiritualties of today.

some of the faiths of modern times are not defined as animistic because these draw a distinction between soul and body or in modern parlance, consciousness and brain.. so in very ancient times, at the dawn of human spiritual belief, the sun, for example, rising and setting was seen not so much as being caused by the proverbial spaghetti monster but as being the proverbial spaghetti monster.

Viviane

Nobody is using or promoting non-standard definitions. I don't question your ability to look up words in a dictionary, however I'm wondering if you can actually explain, in your own words, what consciousness or awareness is. I'm personally advocating the position that it doesn't exist.

Full stop, do not pass go.

Yes, you absolutely were suggesting words needed to be defined or the standard defintions weren't clear. I quote you:

The burden is on you guys to define "consciousness" in a way that allows the brain to be a special object without positing the existence of a spirit or other immaterial "transcendent" component to the brain

What I'm getting at is that you are using words like "consciousness" with the assumption that they have a clear meaning.

So what does "aware" mean?

Unless you didn't mean it when you wrote that, you absolutely were suggesting existing common usages of words was unclear. You don't get to go on and on about words and definitions and clear meaning and then, when called on it, pretend you weren't the one stirring that pot. Stand up for what you wrote.

You can question or not my abilities in any way you like. First, questioning something doesn't mean you have a right to an answer or that the question is relavant. Secondly, it's obvious tactic to deflect from your issues with defintions that you are now denying you brought up.

Please, don't even try it. There are smart people here. Ham-fisted tricks like that don't work.

78

I was "totally" stopped in my tracks by an "atheist" comment.

by booker-t in

i must admit i can at times be a little "egotistical" when it comes to knowledge and the bible.

i have studied the bible for so long and have always had a passion for the bible as a jw and as an ex-jw.

i guess that is all i have left when it comes to religion and as humans we do tend to stroke our egos.

Viviane

IMO there was a major problem with genetic mixing back then.

And what would that problem be?

149

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

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

the classic debate between those who believe that consciousness is merely the result of the operation of the brain, and those who believe that it is apart from the brain, like the idea of a soul or the classic dualistic distinction between mind and body, is a well-known one.. however the thought has occurred that when people try to convince me that the soul cannot be real; soul in the sense of consciousness being a separate thing to the operation of the brain, then really the materialistic non spiritual view is in fact a rehash of animism, strange as that might sound.. animism is the idea that soul, spirit, consciousness, or whatever it might be called, exists in plants, animals, things, objects, places or basically in everything and anything in the material world.

the view of some is that very primitive cultures had this wide category of spiritual belief, which eventually evolved into the all the religions, faiths and spiritualties of today.

some of the faiths of modern times are not defined as animistic because these draw a distinction between soul and body or in modern parlance, consciousness and brain.. so in very ancient times, at the dawn of human spiritual belief, the sun, for example, rising and setting was seen not so much as being caused by the proverbial spaghetti monster but as being the proverbial spaghetti monster.

Viviane

Right. So what does "aware" mean? Do you see where I'm going with this?

I see that you are trying to pretend words don't have commonly understood meanings. If Seraphim is trying to use a non-standard definition, he needs to explain that and make his case. If someone doesn't know what "aware" means, they need to go get some rudimentary education. If you think the meaning of "aware" is not clear, feel free to make that case as to why it's not clear.

149

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

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

the classic debate between those who believe that consciousness is merely the result of the operation of the brain, and those who believe that it is apart from the brain, like the idea of a soul or the classic dualistic distinction between mind and body, is a well-known one.. however the thought has occurred that when people try to convince me that the soul cannot be real; soul in the sense of consciousness being a separate thing to the operation of the brain, then really the materialistic non spiritual view is in fact a rehash of animism, strange as that might sound.. animism is the idea that soul, spirit, consciousness, or whatever it might be called, exists in plants, animals, things, objects, places or basically in everything and anything in the material world.

the view of some is that very primitive cultures had this wide category of spiritual belief, which eventually evolved into the all the religions, faiths and spiritualties of today.

some of the faiths of modern times are not defined as animistic because these draw a distinction between soul and body or in modern parlance, consciousness and brain.. so in very ancient times, at the dawn of human spiritual belief, the sun, for example, rising and setting was seen not so much as being caused by the proverbial spaghetti monster but as being the proverbial spaghetti monster.

Viviane

Viviane, people define words not dictionaries. Dictionaries simply list the definitions in common use which changes over time in many cases.

Agreed. If you are using a definition that is non-standard and non-common, then it is imperative upon you to make that clear and make your case to see if it makes sense and passes muster.

Due to the fact that there is no scientific consensus on what creates consciousness as yet, caution must be applied in setting up its scientific definition.

Hence the need for you to be explicitely clear in exactly what you mean. If you aren't and people misunderstand, then that is no one's fault but yours for not being specific in meaning. Are you attempting to use a non-standard, non-common definition of consciousness other than what is commonly found in a dictionary?

Comprehension is better than being hamstrung by definitions if science and understanding is to move forward.

Comprehension is impossible unless we define terms and create a common understanding. Are you using the term consciousness in a non-standard way? If so and you won't define that for us, you are creating an incomprehensible mess.

149

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

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

the classic debate between those who believe that consciousness is merely the result of the operation of the brain, and those who believe that it is apart from the brain, like the idea of a soul or the classic dualistic distinction between mind and body, is a well-known one.. however the thought has occurred that when people try to convince me that the soul cannot be real; soul in the sense of consciousness being a separate thing to the operation of the brain, then really the materialistic non spiritual view is in fact a rehash of animism, strange as that might sound.. animism is the idea that soul, spirit, consciousness, or whatever it might be called, exists in plants, animals, things, objects, places or basically in everything and anything in the material world.

the view of some is that very primitive cultures had this wide category of spiritual belief, which eventually evolved into the all the religions, faiths and spiritualties of today.

some of the faiths of modern times are not defined as animistic because these draw a distinction between soul and body or in modern parlance, consciousness and brain.. so in very ancient times, at the dawn of human spiritual belief, the sun, for example, rising and setting was seen not so much as being caused by the proverbial spaghetti monster but as being the proverbial spaghetti monster.

Viviane

What I'm getting at is that you are using words like "consciousness" with the assumption that they have a clear meaning. What is consciousness?

Unless Seraphim means something other than the dictionary definition, we have to go with that.

con·scious·ness ˈkänCHəsnəs / noun noun: consciousness

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. " she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later "
- the awareness or perception of something by a person. plural noun: consciousnesses " her acute consciousness of Mike's presence "
- the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. " consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain "

Listing fallacies is not helpful.

It's what you asked for. The question is now why did you ask for something not helpful.

I could claim that you are making a circular logic fallacy when you say, "Non-brains do not have consciousness because consciousness is something only brains have."

You could claim that, but since I never wrote anything like that, it would be an untrue claim.

So far, you seem to just have an issue that people are using the dictionary definition of consciousness and that you got exactly what you asked for. If Seraphim means something else, he/she is free to tell us and explain why and try to make the case for changing the definition.

609

What is spirit, exactly?

by Viviane in

i've always wondered that.

recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.

cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?

Viviane

So, you're answer is that you don't have an answer, "Caliber doesn't know". That's not a problem. Recognizing one's own ignorance of a subject is a wonderful thing, you know where your gaps and areas for improvement.

It's not at all like a child begging. Don't be ridiculous.

609

What is spirit, exactly?

by Viviane in

i've always wondered that.

recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.

cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?

Viviane

So, you say we don't know and can't know, but you're trying to tell me what you think it is and isn't? And somehow you think I am the one beating my head against the wall?

I've taunted no one. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from untruths.

So far, we are no closer to an answer.

609

What is spirit, exactly?

by Viviane in

i've always wondered that.

recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.

cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?

Viviane

We are not made aware of these things silly.. but you won't accept that

Quite the contrary, I fully accept "I don't know" as an answer. If you don't know, that's fine, but you can't claim to not know and then make claims about what it is and isn't.

149

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

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

the classic debate between those who believe that consciousness is merely the result of the operation of the brain, and those who believe that it is apart from the brain, like the idea of a soul or the classic dualistic distinction between mind and body, is a well-known one.. however the thought has occurred that when people try to convince me that the soul cannot be real; soul in the sense of consciousness being a separate thing to the operation of the brain, then really the materialistic non spiritual view is in fact a rehash of animism, strange as that might sound.. animism is the idea that soul, spirit, consciousness, or whatever it might be called, exists in plants, animals, things, objects, places or basically in everything and anything in the material world.

the view of some is that very primitive cultures had this wide category of spiritual belief, which eventually evolved into the all the religions, faiths and spiritualties of today.

some of the faiths of modern times are not defined as animistic because these draw a distinction between soul and body or in modern parlance, consciousness and brain.. so in very ancient times, at the dawn of human spiritual belief, the sun, for example, rising and setting was seen not so much as being caused by the proverbial spaghetti monster but as being the proverbial spaghetti monster.

Viviane

It seemed to me that Seraphim23's point was that if consciousness is just a series of physical reactions in the brain, then all objects have some consciousness because all objects are physically reacting to forces around them. Where is the fallacy in that?

It's a version of the composition fallacy, taking a property of one thing and applying it to everything. For instance, atoms are invsible to the naked eye. I am made of atoms, therefore I am invisible.

It could also be considered a fallacy of the lonely fact (also known as the hasty generalization fallacy), the fact being that all objects don't brains, so the generalization doesn't apply because the fact is, we have brains, those other things don't.

The burden is on you guys to define "consciousness" in a way that allows the brain to be a special object without positing the existence of a spirit or other immaterial "transcendent" component to the brain (i.e., animism).

That is 100% incorrect. The fact is simply that rocks don't have anything that functions or resembles a brain and give no evidence of acting in a way that looks like or resembles consciousness at all. There is, in fact, no definition of consciousness is simply "existence" which is, when reduced down, what Seraphim's reasoning leads to, an attempt to create equivalence between consciousness and something simply existing.

149

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

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

the classic debate between those who believe that consciousness is merely the result of the operation of the brain, and those who believe that it is apart from the brain, like the idea of a soul or the classic dualistic distinction between mind and body, is a well-known one.. however the thought has occurred that when people try to convince me that the soul cannot be real; soul in the sense of consciousness being a separate thing to the operation of the brain, then really the materialistic non spiritual view is in fact a rehash of animism, strange as that might sound.. animism is the idea that soul, spirit, consciousness, or whatever it might be called, exists in plants, animals, things, objects, places or basically in everything and anything in the material world.

the view of some is that very primitive cultures had this wide category of spiritual belief, which eventually evolved into the all the religions, faiths and spiritualties of today.

some of the faiths of modern times are not defined as animistic because these draw a distinction between soul and body or in modern parlance, consciousness and brain.. so in very ancient times, at the dawn of human spiritual belief, the sun, for example, rising and setting was seen not so much as being caused by the proverbial spaghetti monster but as being the proverbial spaghetti monster.

Viviane

Seraphim is trying to claim "not A = A" and thus far has failed to demonstrate that. The other tactic used is similar to the "what is spirit made of" question in that the claim is being made that since someone can't prove that there is not an invisible undetectable spirit or soul connected to your physical brain, it's a possibility and therefore if you deny that, it's on you to prove it.

It's a classic case of "you've got that exactly backwards", kind of like when Ihear people say "the Bible says spare the rod and spoil the child, that's why I don't spank". Seraphim has taken a concept, that of onus of evidence, and gotten it exactly backwards. The way is works is that you take observation and draw conclusions from them, such as "if the brain is damaged, in some cases it can affect consciousness, therefore all evidence points to consciousness being a physical aspect of the brain".

If we did it the other way, meaning if we entertained every possibility and put the onus to disprove on the skeptic, then Seraphim would in fact spend all of his time trying to disprove every alternate, evidence-free thing anyone said. For instance, I now claim that consciousness resides in minature invisible dragons that live in electron sized teapots orbiting Saturn and hiding in it's rings and that the consciousness is tethered do our brains by neutrinos colliding with our synapses via nano-sized wormholes. In Seraphim's model, the onus is on him/her to disprove that.