"The brain is just how the soul expresses itself"

[rocketman]

Hi rocketman,

Hi there s2a.

I see that you offered nothing new in your last two posts, nor anything critical to the thread that Mr S hasn't already addressed. Nevertheless, I will humour the remainder of your prose, your commentary on comments, and your many single spaced lines that give birth to vast tracts of white space, which I will return in earnest.

Ummm...specifics? ...
"Common knowledge" rarely presents any sort of validated fact. A "fact of common knowledge" may only serve to enunciate a greater ignorance, or (errant) "belief". "Urban legends" abound as "common knowledge"...but most are readily debunked.

Lots of people intuitively think they have soul, this you already know. I'm a specific example. But that's now common knowledge for readers of this thread. Please tell me why are we labouring this?

I reiterate...there is NO evidence of ANY kind that even hints or suggests that a (claimed) "human soul" exists. NONE. It's OK to WISH for such a thing...but to insist that it MUST exist--absent any compelling proofs or evidences--is to map a hopeful path to "Shangri-La", or "heaven", or "Eden".

Who insisted this? As for me, I can only speak for myself, of myself. You of-course must speak for your own intuition. (and any special experiences you may have had!)

Faith is not a methodology, a plan, or even a mapped path to any destination borne of wish and hope alone.

Faith is also not intuition.

Ummm...so what?

I confess I was bemused when I read of your downplaying Joshua Greene, himself a friend of the atheist set, not to mention a neuroscientist (you missed that bit). Correct me if I'm wrong, but you asked (not in so many words) how we could eliminate mysterious causes, or rule out a soul, and I showed you a man of your ilk who has a plan, at least one that he thinks will be sufficient. Crick and Koch thought they had it in the bag but apparently not. Why all this effort? Hmmm.

Joshua Greene is a psychologist and a philosopher serving to validate his own "research" into the aspects of (however they may relate between) emotional and "cognitive" processes in moral judgment.

If Mr Greene can physically detect the complete cause of moral judgement, what would that mean? Would his work be relevant?

Ahhh...the specificity afforded (or not) by the obtuse and purposefully evasive...

Not evasive at all. Economical actually. I try to avoid irrelevant sidetracks if I can. Perhaps you would care to explain why it is relevant?

OK. I'll bite. What non-religious reason would a "believer" in/of "souls" present as justification/rationale of such an "understanding" or "assumption"?

You are asking me what causes intuition. I think Mr Greene is working on it, or somebody like him certainly.

You took a giant step sideways, and said: .....

Nothing sideways about it. I stand by my previous answer. The limitations of logic circutry are grounded in some fundamental mathematics, which is the same for all of us. Perhaps you have a new logic for us to hard-code? Perhaps I've missed your angle?

 

[rocketman]

This flawed assertion presupposes that non-belief actually (and therefore) constitutes a "belief".

A basic mistake from s2a? Surely not. You must be rushing. Allow me to put you at ease: If a neuroscientist like Greene (and plenty of others) acknowledge that many intuitively think they have a soul, then that in and of itself is simply recognition of a phenomenon. They believe the phenomenon is totally physical in nature but they are unable to prove it yet. You know what? That's just the way it is. Intuition facing inference. And at this point in time, to the best of my knowledge, neither side can categorically unseat the other side's view. So what do you have to add to this that we don't already know?

Is that really necessary? Does the introduction of some spurious and untestable concept better serve to reinforce this alleged "common knowledge"?

In addition to being spurious and untestable it is also arguably desperate and doubtful. Which proves my point about what we don't know. Which stands in marked contrast to what we do know about what circuts and physical logic can and cannot do. Both aspects of Penroses work are no surprise to me.

Yet...it seems to go without saying, dontchathink?

Perhaps the soul is extradimensional rather than supernatural. The latter has more of a poetic appeal though, dontchathink?

Is there any contemporarily popular faith-based religion/belief/concept that regards deities as less than "supernatural" in origin or influence in the "natural" cosmos?

I think some Buddhists regard their 'devas' in a preternatural sense if that's what you mean. I'm not sure putting the word 'faith' in as a condition makes your question anything less than loaded.

Irrelevant or not, your tactical evasion serves to further impugn your projected credibility of any expressed convictions or lent opinions.

Untrue. I'm happy to answer. But first you need to explain why the question is relevant.

Looking forward to something new from you.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The limitations of logic circutry are grounded in some fundamental mathematics, which is the same for all of us.

Admittedly, I'm unfamiliar with Penrose's work on this subject. Do these 'limitations of logic circuitry' apply at all stages of human development, and to other animals such as gorillas, as well? If so, how do you think gorillas overcome these 'limitations'? If not, why not?

 

[rocketman]

Admittedly, I'm unfamiliar with Penrose's work on this subject. Do these 'limitations of logic circuitry' apply at all stages of human development, and to other animals such as gorillas, as well? If so, how do you think gorillas overcome these 'limitations'? If not, why not?

You seem to have gone down a different track MR S. I said it's the mathematics which is the same for all of us. It follows from this that there are ways to demonstrate the natural limitations of such circuts, which is bad news for strong-AI proponents and for those who had hoped we could replicate (and therefore undertand) consciousness. Everything points to some weird aspect at work, possibly quantum.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I don't see how that logically follows. You're saying that it is impossible, in principle, for the experiences resulting from a mammalian brain to be difficult to measure? A mammalian brain, without supernatural help, can only produce experiences that can be "measured"?

Don't you agree that the experiences of all primates, cetaceans, etc. "cannot be measured"? If all those animals have experiences that cannot be measured, then do they have a supernatural component, too?

I've heard of Penrose's ideas about quantum consciousness. Those are pretty interesting theories. I thought that quantum effects were pretty much washed out at the macroscopic level of proteins and cells, but I guess I have to read more about it.

I'm not saying we know. I'm saying that if it's valid to infer that other humans have experiences, based on anotomical/behavioral similarities between other humans and oneself, then the same method of inference can be extended to non-human animals.

That is a good question, but it doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not our experience comes from our physical brains. The fact that the best way to understand an experience is to physically induce the experience in oneself isn't incompatible with the claims I'm making.

We don't know what animals experience, just like we don't know what its like to be a plant, a rock or a butterfly. The point is, that we have an internal experience as a human being that we can know nothing about in other things -- even other humans. It gives us a window into what is real that we cannot know through our physical senses.

We can infer that other creatures have a conscious experience, but it is still outside of our means to measure or formulate. That means there is something real, something that we sense internally, that cannot be sensed externally. This implies there is more to reality than we can see, hear and touch.

 

[s2a]

Hi rocketman,

You said:

I see that you offered nothing new in your last two posts, nor anything critical to the thread that Mr S hasn't already addressed. Nevertheless, I will humour the remainder of your prose, your commentary on comments, and your many single spaced lines that give birth to vast tracts of white space, which I will return in earnest.

Your indulgence of my inelegant "whitespace" is appreciated...

I said:
"Common knowledge" rarely presents any sort of validated fact. A "fact of common knowledge" may only serve to enunciate a greater ignorance, or (errant) "belief". "Urban legends" abound as "common knowledge"...but most are readily debunked.

You offered:

Lots of people intuitively think they have soul, this you already know. I'm a specific example. But that's now common knowledge for readers of this thread. Please tell me why are we labouring this?

Um...I dunno...maybe because "belief" does not translate into burdened fact? Maybe because "Intuition" is often wrong, irrelevant, misleading, untestable, etc.? You tell me...

"Belief" testifies to a particular (or unique) personal acceptance of a faith-based claim as being "real", or otherwise irreconcilable fact. Anecdotal testimonies and wishful thinking hardly constitute any sort of validations of either fact or "truth" beyond that individual.

When I said:
I reiterate...there is NO evidence of ANY kind that even hints or suggests that a (claimed) "human soul" exists. NONE. It's OK to WISH for such a thing...but to insist that it MUST exist--absent any compelling proofs or evidences--is to map a hopeful path to "Shangri-La", or "heaven", or "Eden".

You offered:

Who insisted this?

C'mon...

As for me, I can only speak for myself, of myself. You of-course must speak for your own intuition. (and any special experiences you may have had!)

At present, I have confined my commentaries to your attentions alone (so that you might "speak for yourself").

My "intuition" considers the extraordinary claims of religion to be so much bunk and superstition.

I do not offer you any "intuitions" on my part as matter of argument or unassailable fact. I would readily concede that my own "experiences" are quite mundane, but no less relevant to my own perspectives.

I observed that:
Faith is not a methodology, a plan, or even a mapped path to any destination borne of wish and hope alone.

You said:

Faith is also not intuition.

Again, you lend facile explanation/definition of what something is NOT...

If faith is not "intuition", then perhaps it (faith) is not "intuitive" to anyone?

Please define "faith" in such a way that might be understood to all folks that choose to deliberate upon it's (apparently) multifaceted "meanings". Or, define what "faith" (or for that matter, "intuition") means to you, strictly on a personal level of understanding.
[I presuppose that you might at least be capable of expressing what (religious) faith means to you?]

When I asked:
Ummm...so what?

You said:

I confess I was bemused when I read of your downplaying Joshua Greene, himself a friend of the atheist set, not to mention a neuroscientist (you missed that bit).

Either I "missed" it, or I chose to withhold comment. As to which is more likely, I leave you to deliberate upon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you asked (not in so many words) how we could eliminate mysterious causes, or rule out a soul, and I showed you a man of your ilk who has a plan, at least one that he thinks will be sufficient.

"...of my ilk?"

Perhaps cut from similar "cloth"...but let's not mistake a sofa throw from a winter coat, or that both should fit the same upon my unique frame.

Implementation should never serve as validation of any particular "source", nor insist upon some resident inferential "purpose". We may all agree that cotton has it's "uses", but many will disagree as to how best to exploit or uncover opportunity within such "ilk"..

Crick and Koch thought they had it in the bag but apparently not. Why all this effort? Hmmm.

Why indeed? Expression of differing/dissenting perspective/opinion does entail a modicum of effort...but not all that much (not on my part). I have the time, and the inclination, to expound upon my views in this particular regard. I do not request of your leave or consent in so doing.

You said:

Joshua GreenF is a psychologist and a philosopher serving to validate his own "research" into the aspects of (however they may relate between) emotional and "cognitive" processes in moral judgment.

"...HIs own..." just might be key here....

If Mr Greene can physically detect the complete cause of moral judgement, what would that mean? Would his work be relevant?

I have no idea. What relevance do you propose that it might/should portend if it did?

Modern medicine "physically detected" the location of the pituitary as the major endocrine gland about 100 years ago. We can state with relative confidence today that we know what it "does" (or the purposes it serves), and how it "works". This knowledge certainly does not reveal any insights as to why extraordinarily tall, short, fat, or skinny people are generally regarded as being freakish, or odd-looking. Knowing "where" the human capacity of fomenting moral attitudes originates might provide some interesting abstract knowledge...but I see little value in this search for a center/cause of "moral judgment" as some evidence or conclusive proof of what is claimed as a human "soul".

Perhaps if you could explain/define what this alleged human "soul" is, or what function it serves in propagation of the species, or it's relevance to anything beyond substantiation of religious claims...I might be persuaded to attach some importance to such a discovery.

........

I inquired:
OK. I'll bite. What non-religious reason would a "believer" in/of "souls" present as justification/rationale of such an "understanding" or "assumption"?

You replied:

You are asking me what causes intuition. I think Mr Greene is working on it, or somebody like him certainly.

Couldn't you just say, "I don't know what 'causes' intuition", instead? It's your claim that "intuition" is some sort of inherently critical trait or quality in "knowing" (as common knowledge) the "soul". If my summation is incorrect...then PLEASE be specific in detailing just WHAT a "soul" IS; WHAT purpose it serves or fulfills; or (at very least) WHY anyone should intuit an existent "soul"?

You took a giant step sideways, and said: .....

Nothing sideways about it. I stand by my previous answer. The limitations of logic circutry are grounded in some fundamental mathematics, which is the same for all of us. Perhaps you have a new logic for us to hard-code? Perhaps I've missed your angle?

It may be more accurate to observe that it missed you...when you dodged it's pointed thrust. ;-)


This flawed assertion presupposes that non-belief actually (and therefore) constitutes a "belief".

A basic mistake from s2a? Surely not.

Surely not. And don't call me Shirley. ;-)

You must be rushing. Allow me to put you at ease: If a neuroscientist like Greene (and plenty of others) acknowledge that many intuitively think they have a soul, then that in and of itself is simply recognition of a phenomenon.

UFO's are a recognized "phenomenon". But unidentified flying things are just ...unidentified flying things.

Some folk's intuition leads them to believe that UFO's are alien spacecraft. Others believe that these phenomena are futuristic time-travelers, or advanced design aircraft, or mistakenly identified natural phenomena. Acknowledgment of a phenomena lends no credence to whatever beliefs people may attach to them. If neuroscientists, astrophysicists, biologists, conspiracy theorists, or anyone else wants to investigate some intuitive preconception or belief as a path to legitimate discovery...that's fine with me. There's plenty of atheistic UFO "hunters" out there, many of whom "intuitively" like to believe that these phenomena are ET in a spaceship. Atheists are not "all-in-one, like-minded" and diligent skeptics...

 

[s2a]

They believe the phenomenon is totally physical in nature but they are unable to prove it yet.

They may be correct. They may be futilely chasing their own manifestly non-existent and invisible tails.

This is why testable evidence and burdened proofs matter...

You know what? That's just the way it is. Intuition facing inference. And at this point in time, to the best of my knowledge, neither side can categorically unseat the other side's view. So what do you have to add to this that we don't already know?

Well...at least you know now that I'm not particularly wooed by insubstantial claims, regardless of their quoted source or philosophical affiliations. It may also be fair to say that I remain skeptical of claims predicated (primarily) upon intuition, gut feelings, common knowledge, or "spiritual revelation". Some are interesting, even entertaining to indulge and speculate upon...but none are suitably acceptable (or compelling) argument for me to "believe in" (or espouse an adherent faith of a) "belief".

[Note: I'm all about personal "inspiration", in the sense that ideas and motivations can be unique, dynamic, and progressive in spurring both inquiry and discovery. "Intuition" (more often than not) serves as self-validation of one's own preconceived notions, and often only manifests itself in attempts to convince others to think along similar/identical lines of deliberation, rationales, and conclusions.]

Yet...it seems to go without saying, dontchathink?

Perhaps the soul is extradimensional rather than supernatural. The latter has more of a poetic appeal though, dontchathink?

I do. At least a KK theoretical offers a naturalistic causation (and therefore a methodologically scientific foundation from which to investigate further).


Is there any contemporarily popular faith-based religion/belief/concept that regards deities as less than "supernatural" in origin or influence in the "natural" cosmos?

I think some Buddhists regard their 'devas' in a preternatural sense if that's what you mean. I'm not sure putting the word 'faith' in as a condition makes your question anything less than loaded.

Not at all my intent. In the above context, "faith" implies a "belief that is not based on proof".

Looking forward to something new from you.

"The sun will come out, tomorrow...."

As I...too...await more forthcoming and revealing (ie. explanatory) aspects of what you "believe" regarding "souls", "faith", and/or supernaturalistic cause/effect "agency(s)".

I tire of evasive replies that only serve to proffer anti-qualifications of their positions...(ie., "That's not what I'm saying/believe"; "This is not that..."; or simply parroting a premised point by some negative/reflexive counterpoint/inquiry. I'm inviting you to be specific and unequivocally clear in what you do "believe" as fact or "truth" (within the contextual frame of our discussion). I'm not asking you to reveal your street address, your favorite color, or ideal life-companion.

You claim that a human "soul" is real "thing". My inquiries are directed towards this particular claim, and only seek your provision of compelling rationale to accept this claim as probable fact as evidenced and provisionally tested by scientific methodologies.

Either your claim is predicated upon (your personal) faith, or upon available evidences that are subject to verification/falsification by scientifically methodological means and methods. It's that simple, really.

Is that too much to ask?

 

[rocketman]

They may be correct. They may be futilely chasing their own manifestly non-existent and invisible tails.

This is why testable evidence and burdened proofs matter...

And that is why they are looking for them.

Looking forward to something new from you.

Waiting...

 

[YmirGF]

Hiya rocketman,

I only asked...
Many?
Many of what?
Many of whom?
Many of "science"?
Many of "faith"?

I can (read). I'd like to "read" of the "MANY" that may substantively support your claim. I read no (provided) names, nor any accounted backgrounds of affiliation/interest attached to those names. Pity.
Your claim is so broad, unspecific, and generalized...it's not unlike my claiming that there are "many people" that "believe" that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are "the 'Best sandwiches in the world'"!

Precisely. That is why I don't cling to the idea that people believe what I do. I KNOW I experience something well beyond the dimensions of the flesh, but I am grounded well enough to agree that it could all be an illusion created by a very, very vivid imagination. I think it is all too common for people to over-generalize and make rash comments about these topics. I also KNOW that I cannot deflect the thinking of science with my earnestness, so there is little point in beating my head against that wall. It would only seem prudent aside from the fact that I am not insecure in my viewpoints, therefore I feel no need to INSIST that I am right as that would not be especially logical.

If I were one to confidently assert such a claim of superiority in sandwich building, I would at least be bold enough to name some definitive sandwich-making authorities/experts to support my claim.

Well, then there are morons like me, s2a. I CAN give detailed instructions on how people can uncover aspects of their inner reality and have done so on this forum. Just because people do not believe what I am saying is of little consequence to me. My "path" does not require faith whatsoever because it involves direct experience. My thinking is you do not need faith in something that can be readily perceived subjectively. As I stated before the nature of this beast is very illusive and external analysis of inner states will not yield very much that would be compelling.

Let's then look towards a valid and proven methodology in which to fairly exercise and fairly test this "task" set before us...a method that will serve to "categorically" eliminate false or invalid causations. Got one handy?

There is the rub, eh. The thing is s2a, my methodology is quite sound. I do not cloak my thinking in a religious haze and can give methods that are verifiable that will produce results. The kick in the head is exactly what those results may show. Rather than foisting my imprint on your psyche, I would simply give the "how to" and then let the individual romp along on their own, allowing them to form their own conclusions.

But your doubts are predicated upon a specified religious faith...and not within a more scientific (and objective) perspective of alternate possibilities/probabilities.

Well religious thinking is a bit like a straight-jacket as what may perhaps liberate at first will only hold the individual back when things begin to get interesting. Religious folks will simply project their deeply held beliefs onto the reality they perceive. It is inevitable and does take a fair amount of will power to get back on track, as it were. The real fun begins once one moves beyond "god concepts" altogether.

Just like...almost everyone else...yawn.

Hehe. True, true. I am certainly guilty of that. Heaven forbid people eschew accepted dogma, eh, and just go for the "brass ring".

"Truth" is then a personal, not a universal or ubiquitous concept that applies to all, many, or even a distinctly adherent few? "

Truth is simply relative to the viewpoint and experience at a given juncture in time. What is true today may be proven false tomorrow. Truth ain't quite all that it is cracked up to be, lol.

Conceptual souls" are therefore matters of personal" intuition" alone? I'm intrigued by this "intuition" of yours. Do "souls" then only inhabit those people that can "intuit" (incorporate) them within their own existence? Do "souls" exist from within, or from without those lacking in a special "intuition". Is this where the "Ghost of Christmas Past" comes from?

LOL. Oddly, I would never say anything to that effect. In essence, everything in this universe when looked at via their inherent atomic/subatomic structure is in essence energy. "Soul" is simply energy that knows that it exists, although I must say I hate the word "soul" due to the instanteneous religious connotations that the word attracts. I much prefer, "energy personality essence". In my view, intuiting simply does not enter into the discussion. I dunno s2a, in one sense, the "soul" begins directly beneath what we presently refer to as the "unconscious mind". This is another way of saying the area of the individual's makeup that we are not presently aware of. I would assert that that so-called "unconscious" is anything but unconscious.

And no...not all opinions are EQUALLY valid or "just as good as any other". They're not. That's why we TEST hypotheses and theories.

That IS true and that is one reason why I have been referring to "Oneness Theory" of late. Perhaps it is time for the human animal's primitive religion's to start talking about the "Theory of God". Given that they can't prove squat, one would think it was just a sensible thing to do.

I opined:
Such is the realm (and definable constraints) of philosophy...versus testable hypotheses and theory...

This is another "bug-a-boo" of mine in that many folks assume that philosophy and religion somehow "got it right". That is a rather large conceptual leap from assertion to accepted reality without any burden of proof. It is all just so -- unseemly.

I inquired:
How might we, as skeptics, apply similar standards to any "God theory"?

Tut, tut. s2a surely you are not expecting the various holy roller camps to be accountable for their wild claims are you. "Theory of God". Gotta love that idea. It is a theory that, in theory, is proven by faith. I suspect it is akin to Dorothy clicking her heels three times as the thinking in these camps ain't exactly in Kansas anymore.

...Do you believe the "god" (as accounted) in the Bible to be THE GOD of all things, or not?

That would be a big "no" in my corner of reality. It does make for an interesting fairy story however myopic.

This is NOT a trick question, or one that demands an especially convoluted and evasive answer. For example...my convicted answer would be...NO.

It is a very good question s2a. I for One, can hardly wait for the day that people "get over" their need for their cherished "god concepts". Imho, it is only after cutting loose from the "chaff" that things really begin to get interesting.

 

[s2a]

Hello Rocket Man,

When I said:
They may be correct. They may be futilely chasing their own manifestly non-existent and invisible tails.

This is why testable evidence and burdened proofs matter...

You but offered...

And that is why they are looking for them.

You then only answered your own line...

Looking forward to something new from you.

Waiting...

Tell you what.

If you're not going to even try, then neither will I.

I'm well pleased (enough) with my rebuttals to your replies.

I will trust to others to reach their own conclusions as to whom has offered more sustainable and valid arguments.

You good with that?

Cool...

 

[rocketman]

If you're not going to even try, then neither will I.

I do appreciate the effort you put in s2a, but I don't honestly feel we that we are addressing anything here that has not already been addressed earier in this thread. That's how I see it. A few times round the mulberry bush is fine, but after a while it wears thin on me. Sorry if I seem ignorant.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: It has been pointed out to me that you have attributed these words to me in post #166 "Joshua GreenF is a psychologist and a philosopher serving to validate his own "research" into the aspects of (however they may relate between) emotional and "cognitive" processes in moral judgment." They are in fact your words from post #159. Not that I mind (or needed it pointed out to me), but I post this note to satisfy those who do.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You seem to have gone down a different track MR S. I said it's the mathematics which is the same for all of us. It follows from this that there are ways to demonstrate the natural limitations of such circuts, which is bad news for strong-AI proponents and for those who had hoped we could replicate (and therefore undertand) consciousness. Everything points to some weird aspect at work, possibly quantum.

As I said, I'm unfamiliar with Penrose's work, so I take you at your word. Do these 'natural limitations' pose problems for understanding the behavior/experience/consciousness of all animals with brains, or just humans? Thanks.

 

[rocketman]

As I said, I'm unfamiliar with Penrose's work, so I take you at your word. Do these 'natural limitations' pose problems for understanding the behavior/experience/consciousness of all animals with brains, or just humans? Thanks.

The mathematics that defines logic gates is the same everywhere in the universe, assumedly. The problems posed would result directly from not being able to model/simulate consciousness, which applies to all animals. Hope that helps.

 

[yossarian22]

The mathematics that defines logic gates is the same everywhere in the universe, assumedly. The problems posed would result directly from not being able to model/simulate consciousness, which applies to all animals. Hope that helps.

Are you referring to consciousness not being algorithmic?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The mathematics that defines logic gates is the same everywhere in the universe, assumedly. The problems posed would result directly from not being able to model/simulate consciousness, which applies to all animals. Hope that helps.

That does help, thanks. Do you think that Penrose's work implies there is a supernatural component in all animals? Or could there be natural ways that that animal brains overcome these limitations?

 

[rocketman]

Do you think that Penrose's work implies there is a supernatural component in all animals?

No, not directly, and that would not be his intention. For reasons on why I refered to his work in the first place please check back through this thread.

Or could there be natural ways that that animal brains overcome these limitations?

Penrose suggests a quantum mechanism, as I have indicated. Why not read his three books on the subject if you are interested in that sort of thing.

 

[s2a]

I do appreciate the effort you put in s2a, but I don't honestly feel we that we are addressing anything here that has not already been addressed earier in this thread. That's how I see it. A few times round the mulberry bush is fine, but after a while it wears thin on me. Sorry if I seem ignorant.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: It has been pointed out to me that you have attributed these words to me in post #166 "Joshua GreenF is a psychologist and a philosopher serving to validate his own "research" into the aspects of (however they may relate between) emotional and "cognitive" processes in moral judgment." They are in fact your words from post #159. Not that I mind (or needed it pointed out to me), but I post this note to satisfy those who do.

I did not "suggest" that you "seemed" ignorant.

I directly alleged that you remained purposefully evasive in lending substantive rebuttal.

BIG difference.

I stand by my allegation(s)...as (quite) most uncomfortably confirmed by your subsequently lacking "replies".

I CAN respect differences of perspective, and opinion...if such differences are well established and punctuated by relevant facts and compelling evidences...

...you, have offered neither.

The (human) "soul" may adequately serve as a metaphor for the unique nature of any individual, or the expression of the human condition as a whole...

...but you have lent neither insight nor evidence to support ANY reasoned conclusion that a "soul" is a REAL or EXISTENT "entity" of ANY kind...[being] either "spiritual" or "extra-dimensional".

Again, the presented premise of the thread is...

"The brain is just how the soul expresses itself"
​

I say...BUNK.

Either define (exactly and specifically) just WHAT "the [human] soul" IS...or refine/rephrase the initial premise of the thread.

I can reject the presented premise purely and pointedly because it remains an untestable testimony of faith...not as any evidential fact or burdened proof.

I win.

You lose.

Shall we now debate the most favored flavor of cat food amongst all felines?

Do you say tuna, salmon, or chicken?

Beware, I may present compelling anecdotal "testimony" to validate my conclusion.

Take a side. Make your case.

I double dog dare you...;-)

 

[Nick Soapdish]

That does help, thanks. Do you think that Penrose's work implies there is a supernatural component in all animals? Or could there be natural ways that that animal brains overcome these limitations?

I don't think Penrose believes in supernaturalism. He is certainly a Platonist (he speaks of this frequently), but I don't ever remember reading anything that suggests Penrose is a theist or not.

He references Kurt Godel quite a bit, who was decidedly a theist.

A good summary of Penrose's ideas are in his book The Large the Small and the Human Mind.

A more detailed discussion is in his book Shadows of the Mind.

There is also an online presentation which I can't find right now, but if I do I will post it.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Are you referring to consciousness not being algorithmic?

That is exactly what Penrose alleges. He basis this largely on Godel's work with his Incompleteness theorems. But he also proposes several scenarios such as his "Penrose tiles". These set of tiles can be placed across an infinite plane and never have a repeating pattern. He suggests this conclusion is never obtainable algorithmically, however, we as mathematicians can assert its truth.

 

[rocketman]

...but you have lent neither insight nor evidence

Funny that. As the initiator of this thread has observed: "I realize that you did not claim there is any scientific evidence for supernatural influences on our experience."

Again, the presented premise of the thread is...

"The brain is just how the soul expresses itself"​

I say...BUNK.

....

I win.

Then you are more capable than all of neuroscience put together. Btw, if you are alluding to my view, I wasn't too keen on this idea either. But you did read through this thread right...

Shall we now debate the most favored flavor of cat food amongst all felines?

At least with that topic we could categorically rule an opinion in or out for a given group of pussies.