Posts by Viviane

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

Viviane

Viv, I used "computation" in the context of human thought. It was you who applied it to computers.

Ah, so I what I wrote was correct in any context.

If a soul is a thing, it does not need to be a physical thing, in order to be a thing

I never claimed otherwise. Please stop making strawman arguments.

Please see https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/279886/what-spirit-exactly for a long discussion on what this "thing" is which no one can explain.

You are presupposing reductionist materialism, and therefore begging the question. (Yeah, yeah, you will say I'm wrong, I don't know what begging the question is, and I'm dishonest. There I'll save you the bother. Predictably what you won't do is supply any argument or evidence for any assertion you make)

No, I asked what this thing is with some helpful investigative questions. The questions did not dictate the answer. And no need to save me time, it's always a pleasure to help people see where they don't understand what "begging the question" means or are being dishonest.

It's nice that you're admitting it now, though.

Non-physical things do exist, such as numbers and thoughts. The question is not whether non-material things can exist, the question is whether a "soul" is among them or not.

Explain now "34" is a non-physical thing. The concept of 34 exists in our brains, a physical thing, and if you refer to 34 physical things, there are 34 physical things, with the number 34 being mathematical shorthand (that again, exists in our brains, in books, papers, computers, etc.) for reality, a physical thing.

My suspicion is that the view held by viv and cofty is that the whole argument re origin of life stands or falls if there is one small mistake somewhere in argument.

I can't speak for Cofty, but wrong again regarding me. OTOH, you would have to construct an argument to test that. I await the day you do so.

It's refreshing to see you admit your dishonesty. Shame to see you won't step up and deal with it.

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

Looks like it's time to see if there is an answer to this question again.

Summary so far:

it's a metaphor for breath, emotions, imagination, energy, air, water, power, force, memory, photosynthesis, attitude, consciousness
We can't explain it
Beyond our ability to understand it
Human magnetic attraction (undefined)
Different levels of vibratory energy (undefined)
Force of life (undefined)
A word with multiple meanings

I bring this back up because it was recently suggested that at some point in the past, humanoids were given a soul or spirit by some creature to make them human and they are the MRCA of all living humans.

So, what is a soul? What is spirit? Anyone?

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

Viviane

Whilst I'd place myself in the same camp as Cofty and Viv' I think it would be a tragedy for you or anyone else to skip that 'minimal effort' and simply accept what they say on authority.
Make that effort, I'm certain Cofty and Viv would agree.

Agreed 100%.

Which previous unfinished business do you refer to?

In which SBF chooses to pretend he wasn't incredibly dishonest.

Be an adult, deal with it, then you'll be able to move on.

Yes well that's what materialists claim, of course, that thoughts are identical to the chemical reactions of the brain. There is little doubt that consciousness arises largely from the brain, but that is different than saying a thought is identical to those physical mechanisms. There are more possibilities to explain the complex nature of reality, including consciousness, than materialism or dualism. Materialism is one way of understanding the world, it is not the only way, and it has its problems.

Stop being dishonest, no one said "identical". I have serious doubts that you are capable of presenting a coherent argument and sticking to it and arguing it without being dishonest about what other people say.

You do it Every. Single. Time.

So, of course every idea about the nature of reality has it's problems, no one is claiming otherwise (strawman by you). The search is on for a better answer (reality). However, pursuing both materialistic and naturalistic solutions (two things you confused and conflated previously) has, so far, produced the only usable results to describe and investigate reality.

Other forms of thought and ways of thinking are worthwhile pursuits. That requires understanding those things (you clearly don't from making so many simple errors in describing certain lines of thinking in philosophy, category errors, making so many logical fallacies, etc.) and the abilities and limitations of them.

The mistakes happen when someone says things like computations don't happen in a physical place. It betrays either a severe lack of understanding of reality, dishonesty, or trolling. I'm personally going to go with trolling.

Anyway, claims of a soul treat it as a thing. Unless you've something or some reason to show it should be treated differently, your trolling is of no value.

Besides, you're still got your previous dishonesty to deal with before you can move on.

Also, looks like it's time for a revival of this thread... https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/279886/what-spirit-exactly

7

3-2-1 You're Back in The Room

by Simon in

whoops, forum update went wrong, normally no big deal and fixable in seconds but then my internet connection cut out on me so it took a while before i could push the fix.. computers know.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_az2bdng97a.

Viviane

Simon, the problem is that you are thinking of "forum", "update", "wrong" and "internet connection" as things, rather than concepts and insisting they fit within a frame of reference, when you realize that this materialistic thinking is flawed, then you can see the world is flat and the site was always working conceptually and that the observable reality of the site being down with a 500 error message was merely one facet of the site's functionality.

Also, the world is flat.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

Viviane

Do you seriously think Deepak Chopra is the main intellectual challenge to materialism today?

Oh, heavens no. That's the level of challenge YOU present to any argument on this forum.

For instance, in your attempt to say something about a soul, you wrote "There are clearly some things without a physical location that do exist, such as the number 34, and human thoughts: dreams, realisations, computations, disappointments."

Even a cursory examination of your list exposes all of the flaws with your comparisons. Thoughts, dreams, realisations and disappointements exist physically within your body, they are chemical changes that can be watched and measured. Computations? Seriously? They happen in a computer, using well known physics. It's literally the reason you are typing on the internet, because it's real and exists in a place.

As far as the number 34, it's math, which is a shorthand way to describe a quantity of items that is a specific amount. For instance, I can't give you "34" and leave it at that. I have to give you 34 of something, or I give something the name 34, like "Rule 34" indicating it is a specific place in a list of items.

So, if some being gave a human a soul and it's in them, where is it?

Feel free to answer once you've addressed your previous dishonesty (really, shame on you for lying so much) and finish your "My First Book of Deepitys" by Chopra. In between those two, take a course in philosophy.

Why "must"? You are apparently so committed to materialism you cannot possibly conceive of an answer outside its frame of reference. And once again, you finding something "ridiculous" does not constitute an argument.

Well.... the concept of 34 exists in our minds. The objects that number 34 are the same quanity whether we know it or not, call it that or not, of even know it exists.

And again, the frame of reference is that something was given, added, to humans, a physical thing. Where is it, then?

Once you've dealt with your dishonesty, please answer.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

Viviane

These questions suppose that only things with a physical location and a material composition exist.

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. If it's in a human, it must be somewhere.

Besides, you're still stuck on your dishonesty from previous comments. Deal with that and then we can move on to your latest nonsense.

Asking where the soul is and what it is made of are rather stupid questions. One might even say obtuse or pseudo intellectual.

A convenient excuse for those that claim it exists in a specific place (in a human) and want to run away when the going gets tough.

Anyway, please resolve your previous dishonest before you attempt to deflect on this subject.

It always amuses me when people who have taken "Intro to Deepak Chopra's Deepitys 101" think they have an "a ha!" or gotcha moment that, with minimal effort, education and critical thinking can be resolved.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

Viviane

I believe in some point the Creator of the universe gave a soul to a couple of humanoids.

What is this "soul"? Where does it reside in the human body? Can we find it? What is it made of? Can it be surgically removed?

as explained by "the most recent ancestor" evolutionary concept

My most recent ancestors are my mother and father. How does that explain a soul?

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

Viviane

Ok, we've reach the point where SBF doesn't know what "only" means. I think we're done here.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

Viviane

But if it is contradictory in this case you've yet to show where

I never said I would. Strawman again.

Seriously, for someone who keeps trying to use philosophy, you keep mis-using it, it's like you're just learned what a hammer is and keep using it to try to put in a lightbulb.

Any plain reading of the WT comments shows that Cofty has misunderstood what they teach

Except, of course, for all the direct quotes that show he doesn't, such as the one I provided. Why are you resorting to dishonesty?

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

Viviane

If you have evidence for the assertions you make why not include it in your post?

I did, try reading.

You imply I am not familar with the source I cite without explicitly saying so, a neat rhetorical trick. However I have read Betley Hart's book and this was a quotation from it. The link was to a review of the book that includes the quote. What distinction do you make between naturalism and materialism?

I in no way implied that. If you felt the sting, it was one of your own making.

They are different things. If you conflate them, you must separate them. Let me be clear, materialism is NOT naturalism. If you feel that they are the same, then it is up to you to make that argument. If you are unable to do so, then YOU show that YOU are unfamiliar with the material, not me.

I consider myself an agnostic. Lots of labelling there, not much (or anything) in the way orf argument or evidence.

Agnostic means "without knowledge". I agree that is an apt description.

1. Cofty asked how theists might respond if scientists manage to demonstrate how life can arise from non-life. I pointed out that the view that scientific discoveries can tell us anything about God or his existence involves a particular philosophical stance and is not a given.

Cofty never suggested it was. You made a strawman and then argued against it.

2. I pointed out that the optimistic view some people have of science, that it will be able to answer ultimate questions, such as about God, at some time in the future, resembles the belief JWs have that the final truth about reality will be established at Armageddon. That looks like fantasy, or wishful thinking, in both cases.

Ah, the "some people" argument. There's your problem. As was pointed out to you, science doesn't seek to answer questions about God. Your argument is with people that misunderstand science, it has nothing to do with Cofty's OP. Again, you are making a strawman and then arguing against it.

3. Cofty claimed that JWs teach scientists will never be able to create life from non-life because there is a "theological barrier" rather than a technical one. WT publications say the opposite, that scientists may be able to create life at some point in the future. For most people a quotation from the WT saying that scientists may create life at some point would be enough to convince them that's what the WT teaches. But not Cofty. A strange position for someone who claims to believe in facts.

And you're wrong again. the WT uses weasel words all over the place to hold 5 different views at once. Just because they say and teach one thing doesn't also mean they don't teach something else as well. As someone who is claiming to be versed in philosophy, strange that you wouldn't grasp that and know it.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201501/origin-of-life/

LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE. “With you [God] is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9.