What's in it for house flies?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I think I had it right in the first place.

Essentially, you are suggesting that our level of existence is akin to that of the housefly, in the sense that we are both demonstrably alive. Similarity ends there, however--- and not just on the sensory plane.

We have souls; housefly does not. The emotional reactions that we are capable of having is one example of soul-ish activity.

but given you can take it as my default position that I believe neither in gods nor souls then you could equate every post I make with thinking our existence is similar to flies; it wouldn't be true of course. You didn't have it right in the first place

We have souls; housefly does not. The emotional reactions that we are capable of having is one example of soul-ish activity.
But even if a soul exists and we humans have one *as you claim*; it remains to be demonstrated by anyone how or where a soul works (such that we have no choice other than to accept such and such a process we humans experience is attributable to a soul). Again, I am by no means a neuro-scientist, but things like emotion or thoughts can be described, I argue, purely by the physical workings of your brain.

In short if your argument is that we have a soul but flies do not; then how do flies not have a soul?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Although I have no idea how house flies experience life, I'm not sure their existence is as ghastly as you claim -- from the flies' perspective. Perhaps being a house fly is awesome ...

Look, I just don't see how the existence of house flies is an argument for or against the belief in an after life for human beings. If I were determined to cling to ...[text shortened]... tially mechanical, unlike the wonderfully unique species that I belong to. And all that jazz.

Not actually trying to argue specifically against an afterlife...Trying to argue against the notion we have an afterlife and lower creatures don't.
Why? Because the topic interests me.

Furthermore; I see no reason that we could not be considered entirely mechanical also. Yes someone might jump in with their nebulous idea of a soul and say we all possess one etc... It's a rather empty response however given it can be equated to 'magic'. (Since it remains to be demonstrated anyone knows what a soul is, or more importantly, how one can differentiate what we experience due to physical processes and what we experience due to soul processes. (Such that the latter can not be described in terms of the former))

Originally posted by Agerg
Not actually trying to argue specifically against an afterlife...Trying to argue against the notion we have an afterlife and lower creatures don't.
Why? Because the topic interests me.

Furthermore; I see no reason that we could not be considered entirely mechanical also. Yes someone might jump in with their nebulous idea of a soul and say we all possess o ...[text shortened]... e due to soul processes. (Such that the latter can not be described in terms of the former))

I too find it interesting.
Perhaps humans think that animals have no soul because humans can only "feel" a human soul. Humanity ,as a whole, has an "energy", that is not linked to other life on this planet.
If this were true,(or a simlilar energy at work), then it could easily be seen why humans appear to have souls whereas non-humans do not.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I too find it interesting.
Perhaps humans think that animals have no soul because humans can only "feel" a human soul. Humanity ,as a whole, has an "energy", that is not linked to other life on this planet.
If this were true,(or a simlilar energy at work), then it could easily be seen why humans appear to have souls whereas non-humans do not.

But for it to be easily seen why only we humans have souls (provided they can't be described in terms of physical processes) I'd need to know why this 'energy' cannot be expressed in terms of physical/natural phenomenon. Furthermore I'd need to know what excludes other lifeforms from having this 'energy'.

What I mean by this is if someone drops an apple and says

"ooh look! when I let go of this apple it moves to the floor all by itself...miracle!
then you can account for this in the framework of gravity. If on the otherhand someone drops an apple and says

"ooh look! When I let go of this apple it turned into a kettle...miracle!"
and it can be verified for the rest of us that such a transformation took place, then the claim stands as we have no way to talk about such an event in terms of natural laws.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You believe we have souls. You believe houseflies do not. You can't claim these things as facts.

Sounds like you're a bit confused about exactly what makes a fact, a fact.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The notion of a "soul" is just a nice way to start identifying our true selves.
If it works, great, but I dont think you can start declaring what has a soul and what doesn't when you cant even identify a soul within yourself (or other people in general).

What do you mean that we can't identify a soul? Of course we can.

Originally posted by Agerg
but given you can take it as my default position that I believe neither in gods nor souls then you could equate every post I make with thinking our existence is similar to flies; it wouldn't be true of course. You didn't have it right in the first place

We have souls; housefly does not. The emotional reactions that we are capable of having is one exampl ur argument is that we have a soul but flies do not; then [b]how do flies not have a soul?[/b]

The measurable detections emitted within the body in concert with any given stimuli (interior or exterior) are nothing more than signals of our reactions to the same. We must be conscious of the stimuli in order for a reaction to register--- you couldn't show a picture of the various nebula from deep space to someone while they slept and expect to see any reaction, for instance. However, if they were dreaming of the same, we could see some reaction coinciding with their dream.

This merely points to the fact that we have capacity for emotional reactions/responses... one of the functions of the soul. A soul doesn't 'work' in the fashion you are using the term. It is being.

Flies have no soul because they weren't given one.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Sounds like you're a bit confused about exactly what makes a fact, a fact.

You are very quick to accuse others of confusion when they point out flaws in your reasoning, aren't you Freaky? Defence mechanism?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What do you mean that we can't identify a soul? Of course we can.

You really ought to publish this earth-shattering knowledge of yours in Nature, mate. You want me to review your paper before you send it?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You are very quick to accuse others of confusion when they point out flaws in your reasoning, aren't you Freaky? Defence mechanism?

Yeah: five hours quick.

Arrogance can be wounded. Virtue cannot.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You really ought to publish this earth-shattering knowledge of yours in Nature, mate. You want me to review your paper before you send it?

Dude, it was published YEARS ago. Nature ain't the word of God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Dude, it was published YEARS ago. Nature ain't the word of God.

Oh not back to those fairy stories of yours again. Which version of the bible is it you believe?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Oh not back to those fairy stories of yours again. Which version of the bible is it you believe?

The one that says God has gifted man with salvation, that this salvation comes through the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. To receive this gift, one merely accepts His work done on the cross to replace their work in life. Acceptance of this gift imparts upon the receiver an eternity with the God of all creation. Rejection of this gift results in an eternity spent separated from the God of all creation.

That version.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The one that says God has gifted man with salvation, that this salvation comes through the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. To receive this gift, one merely accepts His work done on the cross to replace their work in life. Acceptance of this gift imparts upon the receiver an eternity with the God of all creation. Rejection of this gift results in an eternity spent separated from the God of all creation.

That version.

They all say that. Which version specifically?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
They all say that. Which version specifically?

Zzzzz...

Do try and update your assault arsenal. This one is a bit too ragged around the edges.