Do we have a soul with a consciousness that only God can destroy?YahDough wrote: While you may consider my statement an opinion, I will also defend it as truth. We have a soul with a consciousness that only God can destroy.
Do we have a soul that only God can destroy?
Moderator: Moderators
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Do we have a soul that only God can destroy?
Post #1Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Do we have a soul that only God can destroy?
Post #71EduChris wrote: We don't normally say that "ink and paper produce poems." In the same way, we shouldn't assert that the mind is nothing but the product of a strictly physical brain. The author--not the pen and the ink--most truly deserves the credit for the poem.
Poetically put and true to the extent pen and paper are the equivalent of the human brain, an organ with at least 86 billion brain cells*, with each neuron connected to as many as 10,000 others.The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons (or nerve cells) and an equal or slightly greater number of neuroglia (or glial cells) which serve to support and protect the neurons. Each neuron may be connected to up to 10,000 other neurons, passing signals to each other via as many as 1,000 trillion synaptic connections, equivalent by some estimates to a computer with a 1 trillion bit per second processor. Estimates of the human brain’s memory capacity vary wildly from 1 to 1,000 terabytes (for comparison, the 19 million volumes in the US Library of Congress represents about 10 terabytes of data).
http://www.human-memory.net/brain_neurons.html
____________________
*recent research suggests the traditional number, 100 Billion neurons, may be off by about 14 bn.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog ... uman-brain
-
Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9185
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 188 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Post #72
JohnPaul wrote: [Replying to post 64 by 1213]
1213 wrote:Ah, that explains it! Christians have souls, but no brains!Was Nickolas Coke without soul or consciousness, because he did have only a brain stem?
Moderator WarningJohnPaul - you know the rules well enough to know that was going to get you a warning.
Please review our Rules.
______________
Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Re: Do we have a soul that only God can destroy?
Post #73What are brain cells? Are they more than mere conglomerations of basic particles?Danmark wrote:...the human brain, an organ with at least 86 billion brain cells...
What is ink and paper? Aren't they also conglomerations of the same basic particles?
How little we actually know about the human brain...Danmark wrote:...Estimates of the human brain’s memory capacity vary wildly...
____________________
*recent research suggests the traditional number, 100 Billion neurons, may be off by about 14 bn.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog ... uman-brain[/quote]
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Do we have a soul that only God can destroy?
Post #74[/quote]EduChris wrote:What are brain cells? Are they more than mere conglomerations of basic particles?Danmark wrote:...the human brain, an organ with at least 86 billion brain cells...
What is ink and paper? Aren't they also conglomerations of the same basic particles?
How little we actually know about the human brain...Danmark wrote:...Estimates of the human brain’s memory capacity vary wildly...
____________________
*recent research suggests the traditional number, 100 Billion neurons, may be off by about 14 bn.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog ... uman-brain
With ink and paper we have two things that have only a single useful interaction.
With 100 billion neurons, each of which can connect with up to 10,000 others, sending tiny electrochemical signals, we have a quantitative difference that is so great it becomes qualitative. To compare ink and paper to the brain is like comparing a simple switch to a greater array of computing power than we have ever assembled.
http://gizmodo.com/an-83-000-processor- ... 1045026757
It's no wonder the human brain, and in particular the power of our own subconscious, is so profound and amazing that it is mistaken for god. See Julian Jaynes and The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (1976).
Re: Do we have a soul that only God can destroy?
Post #75Do you agree that the ink and paper consist of the same basic particles as we find in the brain?Danmark wrote:...With ink and paper we have two things that have only a single useful interaction...
If so, would you say that "basic particles" provide, in themselves, the basis for consciousness? Or is it rather the specific relationships between all of these particles that provides that basis?
If "particles" + "nothing else" does not equal consciousness, and if "particles" + "something else" = consciousness, then perhaps consciousness derives more from the "something else" than from the particles. As an analogy, "rock" + "nothing else" does not equal a sculpture; but "rock" plus "applied artistic skill" = sculpture. In fact, the "rock" is not at all essential to a sculpture. A sculpture can result from "applied artistic skill" plus numerous other substances--or even without any actual substance, as in the mere imagining of the sculpture.
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Chemicals that make us love
Post #76As part of my argument for the 'soul' having a physical basis in the brain, I have claimed as evidence for this the effect of chemicals on the brain.
At this very moment I am under the influence of hydrocodone and alcohol consumed for the purpose of alleviating lower back pain.
What really intrigues me is that the main thing I feel at the moment is happiness and the feeling that I have a deep and abiding love and appreciation for people. This [sadly] is not the way I ordinarily feel. The reason I am intrigued is that this glow of good feeling for others appears to be chemically produced, whereas I would expect that if I had some 'soul' apart from my brain and what it produces, feeling love for others would be a sign of some profound spiritual work.
I hope I explained that well. Perhaps others could do a better job of it for me, considering my current 'condition.'
:pope: 
At this very moment I am under the influence of hydrocodone and alcohol consumed for the purpose of alleviating lower back pain.
What really intrigues me is that the main thing I feel at the moment is happiness and the feeling that I have a deep and abiding love and appreciation for people. This [sadly] is not the way I ordinarily feel. The reason I am intrigued is that this glow of good feeling for others appears to be chemically produced, whereas I would expect that if I had some 'soul' apart from my brain and what it produces, feeling love for others would be a sign of some profound spiritual work.
I hope I explained that well. Perhaps others could do a better job of it for me, considering my current 'condition.'
:pope: -
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Post #77
From Post 74:
In the case of paper, we get stuff that does it one heckuva job being paper. In the case of the brain, we get stuff that does it one heckuva job being a brain.
I find your line of reasoning faulty on the basis of an incomplete set of data. The data we do have indicates that by mucking about the brain, we can alter the state of consciousness.
What data might you present that leads us to conclude paper has consciousness?
I propose none. I propose you can only attempt to say such as, "Well there's particles there, and particles over yonder, so consciousness oughta be in all of it." This is the problem with a comparison of paper and brain. We have a multitude of data supporting the idea that consciousness is a property, emergent or otherwise, of the brain, and I reckon one sheet of paper swearing up and down it does too.
You are comparing the known - "folks'll carve them up some stuff", with the unknown - "and don't it beat all, God's the best of us at it".
Pretty much.EduChris wrote: Do you agree that the ink and paper consist of the same basic particles as we find in the brain?
Things act according to their properties.EduChris wrote: If so, would you say that "basic particles" provide, in themselves, the basis for consciousness? Or is it rather the specific relationships between all of these particles that provides that basis?
In the case of paper, we get stuff that does it one heckuva job being paper. In the case of the brain, we get stuff that does it one heckuva job being a brain.
I find your line of reasoning faulty on the basis of an incomplete set of data. The data we do have indicates that by mucking about the brain, we can alter the state of consciousness.
What data might you present that leads us to conclude paper has consciousness?
I propose none. I propose you can only attempt to say such as, "Well there's particles there, and particles over yonder, so consciousness oughta be in all of it." This is the problem with a comparison of paper and brain. We have a multitude of data supporting the idea that consciousness is a property, emergent or otherwise, of the brain, and I reckon one sheet of paper swearing up and down it does too.
See above, where consciousness can be affected by things we do to the brain, and not one speck of data shows we can affect the 'consciousness' of a sheet of paper.EduChris wrote: If "particles" + "nothing else" does not equal consciousness, and if "particles" + "something else" = consciousness, then perhaps consciousness derives more from the "something else" than from the particles.
Your problem here then is showing us all how a god's got this great big ol' chisel.EduChris wrote: As an analogy, "rock" + "nothing else" does not equal a sculpture; but "rock" plus "applied artistic skill" = sculpture.
You are comparing the known - "folks'll carve them up some stuff", with the unknown - "and don't it beat all, God's the best of us at it".
Plenty fair.EduChris wrote: In fact, the "rock" is not at all essential to a sculpture. A sculpture can result from "applied artistic skill" plus numerous other substances--
And we see that many a folk'll imagine them up one fancy God.EduChris wrote: --or even without any actual substance, as in the mere imagining of the sculpture.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Post #78
Can you explain how this is not a tautology?JoeyKnothead wrote:...Things act according to their properties...
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Post #79
From Post 77:
Can you show where it's wrong?
Do you, EduChris, contend that paper is conscious? If not, why the comparison? If yes, please present supporting data for analysis.
Y'all out there, have any of y'all ever seen a sheet of paper hop up and run outside in a rush to get the polebeans in 'fore dark? Have y'all ever seen a sheet of paper exhibit consciousness? Y'all ever try to make you a mule out of paper? How much plowin'd ya get done if ya did?
Yes, paper is composed of a bunch of the same stuff as the brain. That does not mean it's composed of all the same stuff, much less near enough of it that we should conclude it's sitting there being conscious.
Simplistically, and I'm just reminding folks, but atoms combine to make stuff, and upon that making, that stuff is seen to then exhibit properties that were not unique to the atoms in their 'previous state' alone, and are unique from other combinations of atoms.
As I mentioned before, I contend the line of reasoning presented in Post 74 here is faulty. It seeks to compare the relatively simply-composed paper with the relatively complexly-composed brain, based on sharing some details of composition.
Paper does not, best is known, carry on with electro-chemical actions, of which the association with consciousness is well established. Where it does compare to the brain, it does so only in a relatively superficial, and unimportant (consciously speaking) manner.
I present such as a reasoned and logical take, based on the observance of things.EduChris wrote:Can you explain how this is not a tautology?JoeyKnothead wrote: ...Things act according to their properties...
Can you show where it's wrong?
Do you, EduChris, contend that paper is conscious? If not, why the comparison? If yes, please present supporting data for analysis.
Y'all out there, have any of y'all ever seen a sheet of paper hop up and run outside in a rush to get the polebeans in 'fore dark? Have y'all ever seen a sheet of paper exhibit consciousness? Y'all ever try to make you a mule out of paper? How much plowin'd ya get done if ya did?
Yes, paper is composed of a bunch of the same stuff as the brain. That does not mean it's composed of all the same stuff, much less near enough of it that we should conclude it's sitting there being conscious.
Simplistically, and I'm just reminding folks, but atoms combine to make stuff, and upon that making, that stuff is seen to then exhibit properties that were not unique to the atoms in their 'previous state' alone, and are unique from other combinations of atoms.
As I mentioned before, I contend the line of reasoning presented in Post 74 here is faulty. It seeks to compare the relatively simply-composed paper with the relatively complexly-composed brain, based on sharing some details of composition.
Paper does not, best is known, carry on with electro-chemical actions, of which the association with consciousness is well established. Where it does compare to the brain, it does so only in a relatively superficial, and unimportant (consciously speaking) manner.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Post #80
So apparently the short answer is, "No, I cannot show how this is not a tautology."JoeyKnothead wrote: From Post 77:
I present such as a reasoned and logical take, based on the observance of things...EduChris wrote:Can you explain how this is not a tautology?JoeyKnothead wrote: ...Things act according to their properties...
The problem, Joey, is that a tautology is not an answer or an explanation.
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
