Spirituality
08 Nov 14
01 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAtheists and evolutionists often confuse the brain with the mind and soul. Not all animals are considered soul beings. Insects have brains, but no soul. An ant brain has about 250,000 brain cells. A human brain has 10,000 million so a colony of 40,000 ants has collectively the same size brain as a human. However, that colony of ants is not considered a soul.
I think we have a language difference, what you call the soul I'd call the mind. What you refer to as mind I'd call reason. So in my language you are saying that the soul and mind are the same thing. You seem to believe in physical resurrection so if the entire body is there it's clearly the whole deal and not just one part.
01 Dec 14
Originally posted by lemon limeThe problem is that your account of personal identity, at least as you've spelled it out here, doesn't allow you the response you've just given. You have distinguished between, on one hand, that which a person is essentially and, on the other hand, all of a person's psychological properties and characteristics. You have said explicitly that none of our psychological properties or characteristics constitute, even in part, our personal identity. However, it is precisely the set of our psychological properties and characteristics that allow us to be aware of ourselves as ourselves. Myself, my life, my loves, everything about me is only recognizable to me as mine because of the persistence of my psychological properties and characteristics over time.
[b]What you've done, in effect, is to render the basis of my personal identity completely empty of content. You have so sharply distinguished between what I am essentially and my psychology that none of what I take to be me remains. It seems to follow that nothing really distinguishes me from anybody else. Who am I essentially? I am merely a persistent co ...[text shortened]... ll sorts of problems and grief...
... [hidden]I moved him over to the left shoulder.[/hidden]
That's why the thought experiment above is so troubling for your view. I am supposing that God switches only that which is essential about us. So, pace your view, none of our psychological properties or characteristics would be switched. But since these are precisely what allow us to recognize ourselves as ourselves, neither of us would be aware of the switch. This just follows from how you've laid out your view. If you want to deny this implication, you'll have to modify what you've said so far about all this.
01 Dec 14
Originally posted by RJHindsHow many colonies would it take to make an ant soul?
Atheists and evolutionists often confuse the brain with the mind and soul. Not all animals are considered soul beings. Insects have brains, but no soul. An ant brain has about 250,000 brain cells. A human brain has 10,000 million so a colony of 40,000 ants has collectively the same size brain as a human. However, that colony of ants is not considered a soul.
01 Dec 14
Originally posted by sonshipWe are a three-part being consisting of spirit - soul - body.
[quote] I'm not so sure there is much difference (if any) between mind and soul. If my awareness here shifts to awareness there, wherever (or whatever) there happens to be, and it's the same me who is observing, then I think mind and soul would have to be the same or intertwined. I'm not familiar with how theologians would explain this, but soul is as good a ...[text shortened]... A Time With The Lord" by Witness Lee
http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?id=12FA96[/b]
The mind is part of the soul.
The soul consists of the mind, the emotion, and the will.
Thanks, this makes sense. I'll look at that website later today.
01 Dec 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou clearly know more about ants than I do, but why should an ant colony not be considered to have a soul? I understand the distinction you're making but it strikes me as artificial. I don't see any particular reason why consciousness should not be distributed across more than one creature, so why should that not also apply to souls?
Atheists and evolutionists often confuse the brain with the mind and soul. Not all animals are considered soul beings. Insects have brains, but no soul. An ant brain has about 250,000 brain cells. A human brain has 10,000 million so a colony of 40,000 ants has collectively the same size brain as a human. However, that colony of ants is not considered a soul.
Even from a purely materialist viewpoint there is a difference between a brain and a mind. In this view the mind is entirely dependent on the brain, but the brain's just so much protoplasm - the mind is the pattern it generates - it's an emergent phenomenon and makes the brain more than mere matter.
Even if you take a dualist view, where there is matter and mind is a different substance which is elsewhere, and the brain is a sort of glorified antenna to let the mind communicate with the material world I don't see an a priori reason why only humans, or some animals and not others, should have souls.
01 Dec 14
Originally posted by bbarrThe point of my thought experiment was to illustrate how some solutions to problems aren't really solutions. Moving the gremlin over to my left shoulder changed one of the conditions of the gremlin problem, but it didn't solve the problem.
The problem is that your account of personal identity, at least as you've spelled it out here, doesn't allow you the response you've just given. You have distinguished between, on one hand, that which a person is essentially and, on the other hand, all of a person's psychological properties and characteristics. You have said explicitly that none of o ...[text shortened]... you want to deny this implication, you'll have to modify what you've said so far about all this.
The mechanics of sheering away aspects of ourselves until there is little or nothing left doesn't make sense to me. It's not something I can't envision anyway because (as I've said before) I'm not physically equipped to address the 'mechanics' of a spiritual realm or afterlife.
01 Dec 14
Originally posted by lemon limeFair enough. We can chalk this up as an article of faith on your part.
The point of my thought experiment was to illustrate how some solutions to problems aren't really solutions. Moving the gremlin over to my left shoulder changed one of the conditions of the gremlin problem, but it didn't solve the problem.
The mechanics of sheering away aspects of ourselves until there is little or nothing left doesn't make sense to me ...[text shortened]... efore) I'm not physically equipped to address the 'mechanics' of a spiritual realm or afterlife.
01 Dec 14
What mustn't be lost in this discussion, is what is it that we care about. Whatever your definition of mind/soul/body/consciousness/intellect etc, which parts do you believe could survive beyond death, and do you care about them if they did (or didn't)?
Although I concede that the 5 year old entity that I grew up from was 'me', if it was suddenly to be whisked away to heaven or hell right now, I am not sure if I would care all that much. I don't really see it as me any more.
01 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrWhether expressed or not 'articles of faith' are at work on both sides.
Fair enough. We can chalk this up as an article of faith on your part.
from a post to DeepThought on Pg. 50:
"It occurs to me the reason for the two different ideas here is our different beliefs. Belief in no afterlife and no spiritual reality to move on to naturally casts the idea of what it means to be you in a different light. Some people say self awareness and identity is basically an illusion... the body dies, and any awareness we had dies with it.
The other point of view is that we have a soul, and that soul is essentially us. The part of us that lives on and is us. Our surroundings will have dramatically changed (for better or worse) but we will be the same person insofar as who we are.
These two points of view inform our questions and reasoning, so it's really no surprise there should be two conflicting points of view here."
01 Dec 14
Originally posted by lemon limeI'm not sure what DeepThought's quote has to do with anything I've claimed in this thread. I'm prepared to defend my positions with arguments.
Whether expressed or not 'articles of faith' are at work on both sides.
from a post to DeepThought on Pg. 50:
"It occurs to me the reason for the two different ideas here is our different beliefs. Belief in no afterlife and no spiritual reality to move on to naturally casts the idea of what it means to be you in a different light. Some people say se ...[text shortened]... and reasoning, so it's really no surprise there should be two conflicting points of view here."
In any case, the point is that you have a conception of personal identity that renders the entirety of our set of psychological properties and characteristics irrelevant to who we essentially are. That's just your view, as you've presented it. If you want to revise it, fine. But until you do, you'll have to accept the implications.
01 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrIt was a quote to DeepThought, not by me. I had to do a double take as I was thinking "I didn't write that, surely?" and then looked more carefully.
I'm not sure what DeepThought's quote has to do with anything I've claimed in this thread. I'm prepared to defend my positions with arguments.
In any case, the point is that you have a conception of personal identity that renders the entirety of our set of psychological properties and characteristics irrelevant to who we essentially are. That's just you ...[text shortened]... d it. If you want to revise it, fine. But until you do, you'll have to accept the implications.