"Professing themselves to be wise..."

Originally posted by RJHinds
Man A Trinity (Spirit, Soul, Body)

https://bible.org/seriespage/man-trinity-spirit-soul-body

At physical birth: body and soul (dichotomous); at spiritual birth: body, soul and human spirit (a trichotomous being).

Originally posted by twhitehead

There was a typo in my writing which didn't help. I meant to say " ..everything that is true for the brain is true for the soul ?"

I am not sure what you mean by the word 'soul' as you have not given any definition.

This not being sure could be though, a reason to never reply. If you are saying "I need to know everything about the SOUL before I give my reply" then my limitation of explaining the soul will be a cause for you never to have to reply.

I am concerned that my explanation of at least something I know about the SOUL will leave you still objecting that you STILL cannot say anything because I have not explained SOUL.

By SOUL I mean the Mind, the Emotion, and the Will. But if I restrict the meaning to that I am sure you will probably object that I have not explained SOUL to you enough. Or you could say "But what do you mean by MIND? What do you mean by WILL? What do you mean by EMOTION?"


Could this not be a game? "But you have not explained enough so I commit to no certain reply."

Let me see what else you have in this post.

I will guess from what you say later on in your post, but I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me if I misunderstand what you mean by 'soul'.
To answer the question, I believe my thoughts and consciousness are a pattern that arises from the brain. I will give more detail as the post progresses.

Start there then because survival of these beyond physical death, I think, is a major issue in Grampy's earlier discussion.

sonship:
Can I collect the memory you have of your 18th birthday and put them under a microscope to view or place in a test tube ?

twhitehead:
In theory, yes.

WHO did it ?

Direct me to WHO did this, "in theory" or otherwise, please. I assume you have documentation of memories stored in some kind of physical medium ?

Does "in theory" mean "No, but I think it could be done sometime" ? If so that is something like "faith" or let's say speculative wishful thinking.

Remember, people of faith can usually recognize other people of faith (in something else perhaps).

Or rather the patterns that store that memory could be found and decoded to give the memory. Just like you will not see the meaning behind the words in this post under a microscope, but you could see the words.

You propose that the pattern of my memory of a my 18th birthday could be retrieved stored and reactivated in someone else's brain or in some kind of device and the memory would be realized ?

I don't think that is possible. We may speculate that someday it might be done. But that is a kind of hope or wish, maybe even something that could be called "faith."

I'll think about it. I think we agree that today storage and retrieval of human memories is not possible.

"In theory" does not do the trick. We cannot store your memories period.

Consciousness arises from the brain, it is not the same thing as the brain.

We know there is a relationship. That consciousness "arises" from brain, I don't know if that can be conclusively stated. A relationship is apparent.

The cause and effect mechanism, I don't think, is conclusively known. I will look into it more.

So for example, hurricane Katrina arose from moving air, but it is not the same thing as moving air, it is a complex pattern in that air. Also the words in this post you see on the screen are more than just the shapes of the pixels but also carry information which can be copied and sent via the internet.
In theory, one could copy a brain, and my consciousness could be moved to another physical entity.

WHO did it ?

So in that sense, I am separate from my brain.

Could there be other senses in which it is so ?

sonship:
Is an electron true or false?
But a belief can be true or false.

twhitehead:
I agree, the information that is stored in matter constitutes something more than the matter itself. this is true for all information, even computer programs, writing, or foot prints in the sand.

But information can be copied, and information does not fit into neat little packages.

So your SOUL is only information ? Is that what you are saying ?

If the soul is information, it should be possible to copy it, divide it, analyze it, change it etc.

And if it is not merely information, your analogy breaks down for that reason and possibly others as well.

What I see so far is the expression of great faith in what I would call Scientism.

Scientism is a term used to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."[2] An individual who subscribes to scientism is referred to as a scientismist.[3][4][5][6][7] The term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[8][9] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[10] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[11] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[12] and Tzvetan Todorov[13] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[14] "Scientism" has also been taken over as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge by philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg.[15]

From wikipedia

But if that is not fair then let's just say, you hope and believe that one day scientists will be able to do what you suggest, what you hope will negate any teaching concerning the health and well being of the SOUL before God.

I could for example change the memory you have of your 18th birthday. This is something that is known to be the case.

Again, WHO did this ?

"In theory" is just an expression of something like faith.

Memories can be manipulated by manipulating the physical brain (which is where those memories are stored).

While you are expressing your faith of what in theory should be able someday to be done, some of us are impressed with what one Jesus Christ has done, to the best of our ascertainment, in human history. That is put a soul back into a dead body to make the whole person come alive again. And if that is not enough HIMSELF re-put His own SOUL back into His physical body with memories and all intack.

"And He said to them, Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your heart? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you behold Me having.

And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. And while they still did not believe for joy and were marveling, He said to them. Do you have anything here to eat? And they handed Him a piece of broiled fish; And He took it and ate before them." (Luke 24:28-43)

This incident included some empirical and even "scientific" demonstration of veracity.

What is gripping about this to many of us is that it is so consistent with the power of His previous acts and words. Jesus is believable. And the resurrection of Jesus is believable. And therefore to many the mastery of re-uniting the soul with a body once killed and made alive again is demonstrated in history by this One claiming to be "Son of God".

Originally posted by FabianFnas
That's why the whole soul thing is religious. Either you believe it, or you don't. It cannot be explained. That's religion.

That's why the whole soul thing is religious. Either you believe it, or you don't. It cannot be explained. That's religion.

Are things which you believe but cannot prove necessarily untrue ?

Are all "religious" things, de facto and necessarily untrue ?

Is it possible logically that something unprovable could be nonetheless true ?

Originally posted by sonship
This not being sure could be though, a reason to never reply. If you are saying "I need to know everything about the SOUL before I give my reply" then my limitation of explaining the soul will be a cause for you never to have to reply.

I am not sure what you are on about here, I did my best to guess at your meaning and give a reply. Is there anything you feel I did not reply to adequately? If so, you need only ask.
Your continual pretence that I am reluctant to answer questions is getting old. This is at least the third time you have made the claim - with apparently no supporting evidence whatsoever. When have I ever appeared reluctant to answer questions?

Start there then because survival of these beyond physical death, I think, is a major issue in Grampy's earlier discussion.
I think it is, but Gramply seems remarkably reluctant to clarify.

Direct me to WHO did this, "in theory" or otherwise, please. I assume you have documentation of [b]memories stored in some kind of physical medium ? [/b]
By 'in theory' I mean it could be done theoretically but has not necessarily been done, and may not be possible with current technology, - but there is no reason to think that with future technology it could not be done.
But to give a hint at what is possible with todays crude technology:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/mar/12/mind-reading-brain-scans-memories

If so that is something like "faith" or let's say speculative wishful thinking.
Its a lot more than speculative wishful thinking. It follows directly from my knowledge of how the brain works. It may be extremely complex to actually achieve as it would not just require reading off the data stored in your brain, but also the machinery and programs used to interpret that data. But I have no doubt whatsoever that the memory of your 18 birthday (if you have one) is stored in your brain in the physical configuration of the cells.

Remember, people of faith can usually recognize other people of faith (in something else perhaps).
Apparently not.

You propose that the pattern of my memory of a my 18th birthday could be retrieved stored and reactivated in someone else's brain or in some kind of device and the memory would be realized ?
In some kind of device, yes.

I don't think that is possible. We may speculate that someday it might be done. But that is a kind of hope or wish, maybe even something that could be called "faith."
I am not even sure that we will ever be able to actually do it. But it remains theoretically possible - and no, that is not a matter of faith.

I'll think about it. I think we agree that today storage and retrieval of human memories is not possible.
Yes. But I believe crude success has been achieved with rats.

"In theory" does not do the trick. We cannot store your memories period.
I suspect you missed the point. It doesn't matter whether or not we can currently retrieve or store memories, the fact remains that those memories are stored in the brain using the configuration of the cells and molecules etc. This is I believe, beyond question. Or do you dispute this?

Could there be other senses in which it is so ? (brian separate from consciousness)
I do not think so. I think the fact that we are not currently able to copy brains like we do with computer programs ties the consciousness to the brain pretty strongly.

So your SOUL is only information ? Is that what you are saying ?
I am saying my consciousness is information, yes. A level up from stored information like text, and more like the information contained in the full life cycle of a running computer program complete with inputs and outputs.

And if it is not merely information, your analogy breaks down for that reason and possibly others as well.
Presumably, yes. My analogy is to help explain my understanding of consciousness. If my understanding is wrong, then obviously another analogy would be required to explain it. But the analogies remain accurate for helping to explain what my understanding is.

What I see so far is the expression of great faith in what I would call Scientism.
No, what you see is my explanation of what I understand about consciousness. There is no faith involved and no religion called 'scientism'. My understanding is based in part on my understanding of science. But it is not a religion. If you dispute any of my scientific knowledge and can provide any scientific findings that contradicts it, I would change my views accordingly. I repeat, it is neither faith nor religion.

I could for example change the memory you have of your 18th birthday. This is something that is known to be the case.

Again, WHO did this ?
I can't be bothered to look for references, but it is fairly well known that this can be done via both psychological methods as well as directly damaging the brain physically. If you know anyone with memory loss issues due to brain damage or disease then you know that at a minimum memories can be lost.

"In theory" is just an expression of something like faith.
No, it isn't.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure what you are on about here, I did my best to guess at your meaning and give a reply. Is there anything you feel I did not reply to adequately? If so, you need only ask.
Your continual pretence that I am reluctant to answer questions is getting old. This is at least the third time you have made the claim - with apparently no supporting evide ...[text shortened]... an be lost.

[b]"In theory" is just an expression of something like faith.
No, it isn't.[/b]

I full stopped reading your post to write this.

What old, old, old question did you want me to respond to ?
Could you re-write it ?

Originally posted by twhitehead

I have made a one pass through of your post. I plan to go over it again to see if there is something I want to further discuss.

But one comment I would make.

You like to insist that this is all scientific opinion from you and you have absolutely no involvement with any faith or religion etc.

Well, I'll tell you. It is curious that you insist on coming to the Spirituality Forum and voice your opinions. It is curious that you do not simply carry on detailed discussions of your opinions on the Science Forum.

To me, having seen your participation over the course of years now on "Spirituality" it suggests that these are your true "spiritual" convictions.

What your continued contributions suggests is that you feel some kind of duty or something to say to the world that God, gods, spirituality is misrepresented on this Forum and true spirituality consists of your concepts.

"THIS instead of THAT" is what you appear to be on a mission about.

"THAT is not Spirituality but rather THIS is Spirituality." That seems to be your tone. Otherwise I can't figure out why you don't just feel happy to convey your convictions solely on the Science Forum.

Then you speak of the "delusion" of theism or Christian faith which you wonder what can be done about. Let me suggest that you show us something better than the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. You can deal with the "delusion" of Christian faith by manifesting a life on earth more persuasive than the life of Jesus.

Maybe that way you can deal effectively with the "delusion."
We'll be watching what comes out of your area there.

Originally posted by sonship
What old, old, old question did you want me to respond to ?
Could you re-write it ?

You misunderstood me. I said, your accusations that I am avoiding questions and keeping my opinions to myself is 'getting old'. You keep making the accusation, yet I feel it is totally unfounded.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You misunderstood me. I said, your accusations that I am avoiding questions and keeping my opinions to myself is 'getting old'. You keep making the accusation, yet I feel it is totally unfounded.

Ok. You got my point, disagree and I'll try not to make it again.

Originally posted by sonship
You like to insist that this is all scientific opinion from you and you have absolutely no involvement with any faith or religion etc.

Regarding my understanding of the brain, yes. It is based on personal experience and scientific knowledge, and I would be more than willing to change my understanding should anyone present any evidence that contradicts my understanding or any information that might further my understanding. Hence it is not 'religion' or 'faith' ie it is not based on what I want to be true, or am required to believe is true due to doctrine.

Well, I'll tell you. It is curious that you insist on coming to the Spirituality Forum and voice your opinions. It is curious that you do not simply carry on detailed discussions of your opinions on the Science Forum.
Not everything I discuss in this forum is about science. The science comments were about my understanding of the brain. I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to explain in this forum exactly what I think about the workings of the brain in response to questions by Grampy and you regarding my understanding of the brain and the soul. Your suggestion that I take it to the science forum is frankly ridiculous.

To me, having seen your participation over the course of years now on [b]"Spirituality" it suggests that these are your true "spiritual" convictions.
What your continued contributions suggests is that you feel some kind of duty or something to say to the world that God, gods, spirituality is misrepresented on this Forum and true spirituality consists of your concepts. [/b]
Well then, you are mistaken.

Then you speak of the "delusion" of theism or Christian faith which you wonder what can be done about. Let me suggest that you show us something better than the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. You can deal with the "delusion" of Christian faith by manifesting a life on earth more persuasive than the life of Jesus.
Persuasive in what way? Do you want a more enjoyable story (Lord of the Rings perhaps) or something more likely to be factual (the science you seem somewhat allergic to)?

Originally posted by sonship
Ok. You got my point, disagree and I'll try not to make it again.

I would be even happier if you admitted that you were mistaken. Each time you have made the accusation I have offered to answer any questions you may have, yet you still repeat the accusation. I don't think I have ever been secretive about my views or beliefs on this forum.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Regarding my understanding of the brain, yes. It is based on personal experience and scientific knowledge, and I would be more than willing to change my understanding should anyone present any evidence that contradicts my understanding or any information that might further my understanding. Hence it is not 'religion' or 'faith' ie it is not based on what ...[text shortened]... ngs perhaps) or something more likely to be factual (the science you seem somewhat allergic to)?

Do you want a more enjoyable story (Lord of the Rings perhaps) or something more likely to be factual (the science you seem somewhat allergic to)?

No. You did NOT take the words right out of my mouth if that is what you think you did.

What would impress me is not more entertainment but more truth.
I don't think you have your hands on as much truth as Jesus has His hands on.

H.G. Wells was no fundamentalist Christian. I think he was either agnostic or atheist. But Wells said that when Jesus opened His mouth His words embraced the whole world.

What I would be impressed by is you opening your mouth or putting forward someone ELSE who opens hers or his and it has the effect on the world that Jesus had.

Originally posted by sonship
What would impress me is not more entertainment but more truth.

Good.

I don't think you have your hands on as much truth as Jesus has His hands on.
And I don't think that is a good reason for dismissing anything I say as nonsense. What if we both have bits of the truth? What about listening to both of us and then reasoning it out for yourself?

H.G. Wells was no fundamentalist Christian. I think he was either agnostic or atheist. But Wells said that when Jesus opened His mouth His words embraced the whole world.
I'd be interested to see that quote in context.

What I would be impressed by is you opening your mouth or putting forward someone ELSE who opens hers or his and it has the effect on the world that Jesus had.
Well thats not going to happen. That doesn't mean that what I say is not true - nor does it mean that everything written about Jesus is true.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Good.

[b]I don't think you have your hands on as much truth as Jesus has His hands on.
And I don't think that is a good reason for dismissing anything I say as nonsense. What if we both have bits of the truth? What about listening to both of us and then reasoning it out for yourself?

H.G. Wells was no fundamentalist Christian. I think he wa ...[text shortened]... mean that what I say is not true - nor does it mean that everything written about Jesus is true.

Well, we Christians don't believe everything the Pharisees, the Jews, the Muslims, the JWs, or the atheists have written about Jesus. But if what you say does not line up with the truth taught by Jesus Christ, then as believers in Christ, we Christians have good reason to dismiss contrary statements from others.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Good.

[b]I don't think you have your hands on as much truth as Jesus has His hands on.
And I don't think that is a good reason for dismissing anything I say as nonsense. What if we both have bits of the truth? What about listening to both of us and then reasoning it out for yourself?

H.G. Wells was no fundamentalist Christian. I think he wa ...[text shortened]... mean that what I say is not true - nor does it mean that everything written about Jesus is true.

Good.

You knew that. You were just making a wise crack.

It is not soberminded to compare the New Testament document to Lord of the Rings. People who are drunk or stoned can say some clever things but do not reflect soberminded thinking.

Sometimes they can sound very calm and gentlemenly, even somewhat rational sounding. So you are not just now realizing that that is not what I want, entertainment.

And I don't think that is a good reason for dismissing anything I say as nonsense.

I don't think I referred to anything you have written me in this thread as nonsense.

What if we both have bits of the truth?

I am never surprised when there is some amount of truth in what athiests say.

I am not surprised of there is some error in something a thiest like myself would say.

What about listening to both of us and then reasoning it out for yourself?

Pertaining to THIS topic here's a few places you can start:

1.) Does the mind or soul weigh anything? Can you express the weight of either in terms of grams ?

2.) While we can dye the brain red or blue, the mind, or particular thoughts cannot be dyed. I may imagine the color brown, but that does not mean that my brain is therefore the color brown.

I included the mind as part of the soul. Doesn't it appear that the brain and the soul (including the mind) are not the same thing ?

3.) I can think of pain without feeling pain. My thoughts about pain do not necessarily bring about pain. I can think of a painful experience of hitting my thumb with a hammer without the accompanying activity of the physical object. You do agree that there is a lack of identity between these psychological and physical properties ?

4.) Thoughts cannot be located in space. Is your memory of your 18th birthday nearer to your left ear or nearer to your right ear ?

Thoughts occupy some non-spatial realm. Do you agree ?

sonship:
H.G. Wells was no fundamentalist Christian. I think he was either agnostic or atheist. But Wells said that when Jesus opened His mouth His words embraced the whole world.

twhitehead:
I'd be interested to see that quote in context.

I was interested in knowing who has placed memories in a test tube.
What was your reply ?
Something like you could not be bothered ?

At my leisure I'll try for my own satisfaction to relocate that quotation. I read it before the time of PCs.

sonship:
What I would be impressed by is you opening your mouth or putting forward someone ELSE who opens hers or his and it has the effect on the world that Jesus had.

twhitehead:
Well thats not going to happen. That doesn't mean that what I say is not true - nor does it mean that everything written about Jesus is true.

It is not going to happen for other reasons.
And now it is my turn to ask you: Does that concern you ?

It is very interesting how many conversations I have with folks like you eventually gravitate to something like:

" Well, I don't believe He said that. Well, I don't believe He lived. Well, we don't know if He really SAID that. "

It throws the discussion into the realm of textural criticism of the New Testament every single time.

So often this fall back position of the questionable historicity of the person Jesus of Nazareth is a side door out of so many discussions.

So here we are back again with "Well, IF He lived. Well, IF He really said that."

But you can perhaps explain how MATTER gave rise to THOUGHT in the evolutionary process in the mean time.

And you can comment that that non-material part of you which I know you know is not your physical brain, you have to admit, you don't really KNOW that it does not exist after physical death.

What reason would you give for Jesus wanting to deceive the world about that ? Money? Power ? Fame ? Political influence ?

Does what you know about Jesus in the Gospels impress you as a man eager to gain for Himself any of these things ?

Originally posted by sonship
You knew that. You were just making a wise crack.

No, I didn't know that. It was not at all clear in your original post. Many theists I find are not interested in the truth, they are interested in what benefits them. You will often hear a person say 'I could not believe in a God who ....' or something to that effect.
Your original post appears to be saying you want a very particular thing to believe in - which is simply not how truth works. If you want the truth you have to accept it whether you like it or not.

It is not soberminded to compare the New Testament document to Lord of the Rings. People who are drunk or stoned can say some clever things but do not reflect soberminded thinking.
I am neither drunk nor stoned. Of course one can compare two documents, and I never said they were 'comparable' if that is the tense you intend. I said the Lord of the Rings was more entertaining as a story. Do you disagree? But I think you missed the point. I was merely asking for clarification as to what you really wanted. If you really want to go into a side discussion as to which document is more entertaining, then we can, or you can keep the insults to yourself and try to understand what I was saying.

I don't think I referred to anything you have written me in this thread as nonsense.
I apologize, I misunderstood you. I have gone back and reread your post and I see I too it in the wrong way.

1.) Does the mind or soul weigh anything? Can you express the weight of either in terms of grams ?
No. And I wouldn't expect to, the mind isn't a physical object any more than the meaning in this post is (and it can't be weighed either).

2.) While we can dye the brain red or blue, the mind, or particular thoughts cannot be dyed. I may imagine the color brown, but that does not mean that my brain is therefore the color brown.
Nor can you dye the word 'particular' brown. You could write it in a brown font but that wouldn't change its meaning in any way.

I included the mind as part of the soul. Doesn't it appear that the brain and the soul (including the mind) are not the same thing ?
As I have said, many times, they are not the same thing, but one is wholly dependant on the other until we find a way of copying the information to somewhere else.

You do agree that there is a lack of identity between these psychological and physical properties ?
Yes.

4.) Thoughts cannot be located in space. Is your memory of your 18th birthday nearer to your left ear or nearer to your right ear ?
I don't actually have such a memory, but if I did, I wouldn't know where it is stored, but it could be located, just as a computer program could be located. I believe, all it would take is an MRI whilst I recall the memory although I don't know how accurate this is.
But are you talking about where it is stored, or the location of the abstract information?

Thoughts occupy some non-spatial realm. Do you agree ?
Does the meaning of this post occupy some non-spatial realm?
Are you unable to locate this post in space and time?
Where is 2+2?
I think information in general has both abstract forms that have no location and concrete forms that have location.

I was interested in knowing who has placed memories in a test tube.
What was your reply ?
Something like you could not be bothered ?
Just to be clear, I never said anyone had placed memories in a test tube. I said it was well known that memories could be altered.
And for the record I did try to locate that quotation before asking you for the context, but I did not find it.
I did find out that H.G. Wells appears not to have been a Christian (as you said).

It is not going to happen for other reasons.
Other reasons than what? I didn't give any reasons at all. I merely stated that I wasn't going to happen - and I thought the reasons were pretty obvious.

And now it is my turn to ask you: Does that concern you ?
No, why should it? I don't expect to be more influential than Jesus, in fact I don't expect to be more influential than most of the politicians in my own country - and probably even less influential than my own dad. Why should it concern me?

It throws the discussion into the realm of textural criticism of the New Testament every single time.
Although it is true that I do not believe he said that, I did not say so in this thread, nor would it be particularly relevant, so I think you are jumping the gun.

So often this fall back position of the questionable historicity of the person Jesus of Nazareth is a side door out of so many discussions.
It is an obvious side door for an earlier statement you made about him rising from the dead including a "scientific" demonstration of veracity.

But you can perhaps explain how MATTER gave rise to THOUGHT in the evolutionary process in the mean time.
I do not have the details, but it appears to be a fairly gradual process from simple cell to cell signalling to nervous systems and then central nervous systems. But it is clear that it happened a very long time ago, not very long after multicellular animals appeared. In fact a nervous system is almost essential for mobile life.
I must point out too that octopus' are pretty smart creatures.

And you can comment that that non-material part of you which I know you know is not your physical brain, you have to admit, you don't really KNOW that it does not exist after physical death.
Does the meaning in this post still exist after all copies of it are erased? Did the thought you just have disappear after you forgot it, or might it be floating around in the ether somewhere?
I think I have very good reason to think that the entity I consider to be me will not persist after my physical death. And if it did, I think there would be a continuity problem.
You see, it is very likely that at the moment of my death I will have lost most of my memories and possibly even have gone insane. Do I want such an entity to persist after death? Do I care if it did? Will it be me?

What reason would you give for Jesus wanting to deceive the world about that ? Money? Power ? Fame ? Political influence ?
None. I have no reason to believe Jesus wanted to deceive anyone. But as you point out above, I don't believe some of the claims made about him. What you can't get away with however is claim that he did exist, did everything you claim he did, but was really a conman whose motives I must now explain. That just does not add up.