Viviane

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 4,484 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Viviane

• 
  609

  What is spirit, exactly?

  by Viviane in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  That's probably the most intelligent response you could make when you get caught making ridiculous claims, Ruby.
• 
  149

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

  by Seraphim23 in

  1. jw
  2. 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  For the purposes of this discussion soul is synonymous with consciousness.

  Why? How?

  For the purposes of this discussion soul is synonymous with consciousness.

  So, right now, all evidence points to consciousness arising from a physical brain. What evidence to the contrary do we have?
• 
  609

  What is spirit, exactly?

  by Viviane in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  So "we" must conclude that the whole thread was a calossal waste of time .... that is what the "evidence" does point to right ?

  Who is "we"? I personally found this thread quite enlightening for a variety of reasons. It is clear that we on this forum have no actual idea what spirit is made of. At best, "it's a metaphor for something else" or "don't know" is the most honest answer. We also learned you can ask one person what spirit is and get three different answers.

  and we still don't know what breathering is exactly. how can be possibly know what spirit is exactly.

  You may not, but many others do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing

  Caliber I don't think the thread is a waste of time if viv can admit that we don't know what anything is exactly.

  Should be easy enough. Just provide some evidence for that and you will convince me.
• 
  149

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

  by Seraphim23 in

  1. jw
  2. 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Viviane, the above two statements demonstrate that you don't even understand what I'm arguing, so I don't see the point in continuing this conversation. I can't repeat myself anymore. See ya later.

  It demonstrates no such thing. Rather, this entire conversation is a clear example of not having a cogent thought out argument. For instance:

  1. Arguing that definitions are precise enough and the claiming to not have ever cared about definitions

  2. Attempting to suggest that because physical things are physical, a definition of life is hard

  3. Arguing that plants don't move (they do)

  4. Conflaction of chemical processes with physical

  5. Conflation of agency and free will with the existence of consciousness

  6. Attempting to claim what others believe

  7. Complaining when you got what you asked for

  Your argument was Jello, shaping itself to whatever it needed to be as you went. There was no rationally thought out position or support. It's actually not a common skill to build a premise, supporting connective arguments with conclusions.
• 
  609

  What is spirit, exactly?

  by Viviane in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  No evidence so far.
• 
  149

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

  by Seraphim23 in

  1. jw
  2. 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Viviane, I can't take the time to answer all your individual nitpickings, it's too wearying.

  I can see where having your poorly thought through arguments destroyed would be tiresome. As it stands, all evidence point to consciousness being a result of a physical brain.

  The basic point I'm making is that I believe the dictionary definitions are based upon assumptions. I'm not suggesting alternate definitions, I'm simply questioning that words like "consciousness" or "awareness" describe anything that can only be found in creatures with brains

  There nothing wrong with questioning it. There's just no evidence for it. As for definitions, you went on and on a lot more about that, but that's already been covered.

  Your counterpoint that people can moderate their reflexive reactions is the most interesting one. I still believe that this moderation is itself a reaction, over a longer-term, to outside stimuli.

  Everything that happens in the universe is a physical action or reaction. It's at all like a rock rolling down a hill. You're starting to make a more meta-physical argument in the realm of "does free will exist", which is far outside the scope of this conversation. It's a fascinating topic, you should start a thread on it.
• 
  609

  What is spirit, exactly?

  by Viviane in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  If you reject the Bible as a source of information... and wish to know what God is (or is made of ) and all the reasons why He does things the way He does....before any measure of faith is shown , then you'll be waiting about the same length of time that Vivane is to get her answer .

  As will you. You keep switching bewteen "humans can't know" and something that makes absolutely no sense and explains nothing. I will be waiting exactly as long as it takes someone to figure it out, which is how long everyone will be waiting.

  So far, we are no closer to an answer.
• 
  149

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

  by Seraphim23 in

  1. jw
  2. 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  I just see the startle reflex as a straightforward example of a physical event (say, a housefly flying at your face) which generates a reaction.

  Every single event in the universe that happens is a physical event. That is no way means we can have a working definition of life.

  There may be some quantum uncertainty that could present a problem in this, but basically I just don't see where in the brain would reside free will or anything that could be termed a consciousness.

  The free will or not debate is a long one. We propbably first need to understand what type of "no free will argument you are making" and, there is a working definition of consciousness that appears to accurately describe reality. Are you using a non-common definition of consciousness? You have yet to show why the definition I posted is lacking.

  All the evidence is that the brain produces consciousness. Your issue seem to be that, so far, we haven't figured out exactly how it does it.
• 
  149

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

  by Seraphim23 in

  1. jw
  2. 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

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

  Looks like someone has never heard of heliotropism, or Venus fly-traps

  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.

  How is that the same? People can train themselves not to react. Rocks cannot. In any event, that true, all things that exist in this universe are subject to it's rules. How does that make the defition of living things harder?

  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?

  Your definition of "walking water-bags which transport a mixture of bacteria" would still be 100% true. Why wouldn't they?

  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.

  People can change how they react to things. People can train themselves to no flinch at a loud noise or something to close to their face. It's a suggestion I've seen before, but so far, no one has connected the dots to show it to be true. You would be the first. I await your arguments.
• 
  149

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

  by Seraphim23 in

  1. jw
  2. 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  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.

  And as I have been saying, if Seraphim wants to use a different defintion that the common one in the dictionary or you do, make your case as to why and what the new definition should be.

  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."

  Welcome to the club of people that like to ignorantly tell me what I believe and get it wrong.

  I've never said any such thing. I've never hinted at any such thing. I'm simnply saying that if Seraphim or you want to use a different definition that the one commonly found in the dictionary, you need to make that case. So far no one has. It's time to show us why it is inadequate and provide the new definition or let it go. Put up or shut up.

  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".

  OK. Why is not a meaningful word? Are you using "aware" in a non-standard non-commonly understood way? To show a point you actually have to, you know, show it. Not just say you wanted to.

  Why is that word inadequate?