The human soul

More
5 years 1 month ago #334903 by Loudzoo
Replied by Loudzoo on topic The human soul

Gisteron wrote: No, but you did say that it wasn't in response to the OP, and Dr. McGilchrist isn't here to converse with us, so no point responding to it. I'm sure if one or more of us wanted to adopt any of his points they would have done so and it would be part of the discussion anyhow.
But I don't think that my response is past the question either. What ever the soul is supposed to be, either it is supposed to have relevance to our lives or it isn't. If it isn't, then it is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist at all. And if it is, then there is positive indication that there is no such thing. You can't move things "outside the realm of science" and still insist that they are real in any non-abstract, meaningful sense. If something "exists outside of reality", that's functionally identical with it "really not existing". That there may be some philosophical nuance I'm missing out when saying this is fine. I'm not a philosopher. To me things that matter matter and things that don't are either fun to ponder to no end, or a waste of time, or both.

As for whether we can meaningfully quantify feelings or experiences... That depends. Some insist that there is something "it is like to" have an experience. To me that's begging the question. It is presupposing this essence of self that it sets out to prove. In order to save the argument from being viciously circular I think those who assert its conclusion - or premise, since they are the same - have all of their homework well ahead of them to demonstrate that love is a term referring to anything other or beyond "merely" the biochemical processes we know for a fact correspond to it. A task they have no realistic chance of fulfilling whatsoever.


I do enjoy these discussions but it makes sense that we both get a little frustrated with each other from time to time (or maybe its just me!). Whether we discuss faith, the Force, the soul or anything else of that nature we're really just dancing around an underlying question: Are empiricism and rationalism the only valid branches of epistemology? You seem to think they are - and I don't!

The Librarian
Knight of TOTJO: Initiate Journal , Apprentice Journal , Knight Journal , Loudzoo's Scrapbook
TM: Proteus
Knighted Apprentices: Tellahane , Skryym
Apprentices: Squint , REBender
Master's Thesis: The Jedi Book of Life
If peace cannot be maintained with honour, it is no longer peace . . .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 1 month ago #334905 by Gisteron
Replied by Gisteron on topic The human soul

Loudzoo wrote: I do enjoy these discussions but it makes sense that we both get a little frustrated with each other from time to time (or maybe its just me!). Whether we discuss faith, the Force, the soul or anything else of that nature we're really just dancing around an underlying question: Are empiricism and rationalism the only valid branches of epistemology? You seem to think they are - and I don't!

That's funny, I was just sticking to the topic, but oh, fine...
I don't know what you mean by "valid branch of epistemology", and I frankly don't think much of either of the two you named, in part because it is not my job to think of them, and in part because I think I'm nowhere near qualified enough to give silly and simplistic answers to genuinely complex questions. I don't know by what metric it seems to you that I think what ever this thought you say I seem to have is supposed to be, but it would appear from what else you said in this thread that a great many things seem to you for no reason at all anyway, so what do I know...
I don't think that it is in any way relevant to this thread, anyway. Or the thing you quoted as if you were going to respond to it. I'll re-engage with the former, for now. We can take this elsewhere, if you insist.

Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 1 month ago #334906 by Loudzoo
Replied by Loudzoo on topic The human soul

Gisteron wrote:

Loudzoo wrote: The point is well made there Kyrin. You CANNOT see a smell !!! If you can see it - it isn't a smell - its a sight. You can only smell, a smell.

No, that's just false. You're assuming, on no grounds whatsoever, that a smell is something more or other than what we know smells are literally composed of. And upon being corrected, you just double down and insist in your assertion that indeed they are, still with no demonstration to that effect at all. Why?


A smell needs a some kind of 'nose' to detect it - by definition: the faculty or power of perceiving odours or scents by means of the organs in the nose.

You can't sense smell with a microscope!

This is the problem with your reductionism. It isn't just about the composition of the molecule in question - it is about the sensitivity of the nose as well. I'm not doubling down on anything - just trying to prevent you and Kyrin from pretending that you can see, smells. Its another category error that needs to called out.

The Librarian
Knight of TOTJO: Initiate Journal , Apprentice Journal , Knight Journal , Loudzoo's Scrapbook
TM: Proteus
Knighted Apprentices: Tellahane , Skryym
Apprentices: Squint , REBender
Master's Thesis: The Jedi Book of Life
If peace cannot be maintained with honour, it is no longer peace . . .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
5 years 1 month ago #334908 by
Replied by on topic The human soul

Loudzoo wrote: The point is well made there Kyrin. You CANNOT see a smell !!! If you can see it - it isn't a smell - its a sight. You can only smell, a smell.


Smell is really nothing more than an interpretation of the brain. We use our senses to detect and interpret specific qualia in our environment. A specific sense designed to specialize in a specific function can be proven valid by the reinforcement of other senses. We smell and we know why we smell, It is because of molecules carrying specific chemicals that excite our olfactory nerve. We hear and we know why we hear. It is because the atmosphere we live in carry's vibrations that excite our ear drums. Have you ever put sand on a drum head? Its is confirmation as well. So in these ways, yes we can actually see smell and we can also see sound and feel sound. All these senses work in conjunction to reinforce our interpretation of our experience of reality. And when that evidence is absent or so irrelevant that it cant be discerned from not existing at all it must be dismissed as imagined. A simple construct of an active imaginative mind.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 1 month ago #334909 by Gisteron
Replied by Gisteron on topic The human soul

Loudzoo wrote:

Gisteron wrote:

Loudzoo wrote: The point is well made there Kyrin. You CANNOT see a smell !!! If you can see it - it isn't a smell - its a sight. You can only smell, a smell.

No, that's just false. You're assuming, on no grounds whatsoever, that a smell is something more or other than what we know smells are literally composed of. And upon being corrected, you just double down and insist in your assertion that indeed they are, still with no demonstration to that effect at all. Why?


A smell needs a some kind of 'nose' to detect it - by definition: the faculty or power of perceiving odours or scents by means of the organs in the nose.

You can't sense smell with a microscope!

This is the problem with your reductionism. It isn't just about the composition of the molecule in question - it is about the sensitivity of the nose as well. I'm not doubling down on anything - just trying to prevent you and Kyrin from pretending that you can see, smells. Its another category error that needs to called out.

What, you think we can't see the "nose" as well? You think we can't see the odour reacting to the smell-sensitive cell? You think we can't see the latter transmitting the signal to the nerve, and trace it all the way up to the brain, and how it gets processed? You are not calling out anything. If you could point to anything about smell that isn't figured out yet, I'm sure you would have, and all you would be left with is a pitiful argument from ignorance. A gap in knowledge you can cram your precious notion of the smell-experience into, until that gap too would be closed. But you are not even pointing at anything we are missing out. You are just saying that we are, based on nothing but a desperate wish for there to be something to justify the belief in souls we know to be impossible beyond any reasonable doubt.

Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 1 month ago #334910 by Loudzoo
Replied by Loudzoo on topic The human soul

Gisteron wrote:

Loudzoo wrote: I do enjoy these discussions but it makes sense that we both get a little frustrated with each other from time to time (or maybe its just me!). Whether we discuss faith, the Force, the soul or anything else of that nature we're really just dancing around an underlying question: Are empiricism and rationalism the only valid branches of epistemology? You seem to think they are - and I don't!

That's funny, I was just sticking to the topic, but oh, fine...
I don't know what you mean by "valid branch of epistemology", and I frankly don't think much of either of the two you named, in part because it is not my job to think of them, and in part because I think I'm nowhere near qualified enough to give silly and simplistic answers to genuinely complex questions. I don't know by what metric it seems to you that I think what ever this thought you say I seem to have is supposed to be, but it would appear from what else you said in this thread that a great many things seem to you for no reason at all anyway, so what do I know...
I don't think that it is in any way relevant to this thread, anyway. Or the thing you quoted as if you were going to respond to it. I'll re-engage with the former, for now. We can take this elsewhere, if you insist.


I was only trying to extend an olive branch by identifying a potential root of our disagreements on these things. This is a thread about people's ideas regarding the soul. We know you don't think it exists - so why post in it at all? We should take this elsewhere for sure and let people respond to the OP without our bickering.

The Librarian
Knight of TOTJO: Initiate Journal , Apprentice Journal , Knight Journal , Loudzoo's Scrapbook
TM: Proteus
Knighted Apprentices: Tellahane , Skryym
Apprentices: Squint , REBender
Master's Thesis: The Jedi Book of Life
If peace cannot be maintained with honour, it is no longer peace . . .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 1 month ago #334911 by Adder
Replied by Adder on topic The human soul
Yea, the thread is the 'human soul', and its extents. You can't really take the human out of it without changing the topic.

Knight ~ introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist. Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
The following user(s) said Thank You: Loudzoo

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 1 month ago #334912 by Gisteron
Replied by Gisteron on topic The human soul

Loudzoo wrote:

Gisteron wrote: That's funny, I was just sticking to the topic, but oh, fine...
I don't know what you mean by "valid branch of epistemology", and I frankly don't think much of either of the two you named, in part because it is not my job to think of them, and in part because I think I'm nowhere near qualified enough to give silly and simplistic answers to genuinely complex questions. I don't know by what metric it seems to you that I think what ever this thought you say I seem to have is supposed to be, but it would appear from what else you said in this thread that a great many things seem to you for no reason at all anyway, so what do I know...
I don't think that it is in any way relevant to this thread, anyway. Or the thing you quoted as if you were going to respond to it. I'll re-engage with the former, for now. We can take this elsewhere, if you insist.


I was only trying to extend an olive branch by identifying a potential root of our disagreements on these things. This is a thread about people's ideas regarding the soul. We know you don't think it exists - so why post in it at all? We should take this elsewhere for sure and let people respond to the OP without our bickering.

Yea, no. Thanks. No, thanks, for your "olive branch" that was more of a derailment attempt, apparently, than anything of substance, even if taken at face value as I have (I still don't know what you mean by "valid branch of epistemology, I'm not entirely convinced that this is an expression even meta-epistemologists would commonly use). No, thanks for your kind informing me of what this thread was about, I was pretty sure the OP actually asked whether we thought it exists - or doesn't - which to me sounds like that was an important enough question to actually elaborate on in fairness. I'm also pretty sure that my assertion that it didn't in the "What is the Force" thread (post #334819) was what sparked this thread's creation in the first place, as hinted at with "Inspire [sic] by another topic...". At last, no, thanks, for your suggestion to take our "bickering" elsewehere (all whilst continuing it here after I made the suggestion to take off-topic things off the topic, I should add) as if anyone was complaining that either of our on-topic contributions was unwelcome here. I posted in this thread because I wanted to, and you were comfortable with it right up until I actually backed up my claims. No, thanks, for your invitation to leave a conversation that was started pretty much because of me on the grounds that my answer to two of the questions in the OP wasn't quite enough to your liking.

Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 1 month ago #334913 by Adder
Replied by Adder on topic The human soul
So we have a nose with its sensory apparatus, a nervous system for organization and propagation, and a brain for processing and cognition - I think we all get that. The more uniquely human part in the topic is the cognition.

Knight ~ introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist. Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
5 years 1 month ago #334914 by
Replied by on topic The human soul

Loudzoo wrote:
I was only trying to extend an olive branch by identifying a potential root of our disagreements on these things. This is a thread about people's ideas regarding the soul. We know you don't think it exists - so why post in it at all? We should take this elsewhere for sure and let people respond to the OP without our bickering.


Oh come on man, Why do you have to go there. I don't think Gist nor I are bickering. And I wish you didn't feel that way as well. Anytime strong ideas get presented the retaliation is always to reply with "stop the bickering or fighting" or "we are being unfair" or "intolerant". Its bull. Defend your ideas and be prepared to challenge others if you are so inclined, but don't reduce this to some emotional cry for justice. We just don't have to go there. I have been enjoying this conversation and you have challenged ideas that I have desire to defend.

That's what this is supposed to be about. To that end I think you have confused the experience of smell with the mechanics of smell and I think that is where the difference lies and not in some metaphysical realm. Our experience is subjective but the mechanics of it are objective. Different interpretations of the exact same thing and I think its relevant to t his conversation of the Soul. You have a subjective experience of the soul but you have no mechanical equivalent to back that experience up. So how is one to tell the difference between your subjective experience and nothing at all?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi