Are we souls or are we machines?

[phank]

Silly Phank, as a married women I do not go to a PET scan to show my husband how much I love him, I do it by showing him that in my actions and words. Besides, when you can prove there is only material and nothing else, we'll talk, ok?

You still demand that OTHER people prove a negative, so that you don't have to provide positive evidence for your position. This is either dishonest or ignorant.

In any case, your response misses the point again. Yes, you show with your actions and words. And your actions and words are the result of mental activity. And mental activity can be examined, modeled, and tested. Presumably, such a PET scan (or whatever technique would be accurate) would predict the very words and actions you use, or the functional equivalent.

[phank]

Tell me about these PET scans o'love. What do they show?

Currently, they are hypothetical, of course. What's being said is that high-level behaviors derive from low-level patterns of neural activity. A growing body of experimental evidence indicates that such patterns, and the dynamics of those patterns, are sufficient to explain what consciousness seems like to itself.

What I don't understand is the apparent need on the part of some people for something undefinable, undetectable, and untestable outside of neural activity. I'm guessing that fear of death and the desire to live indefinitely underlie this need. But that's just a guess.

[lilpixieofterror]

You still demand that OTHER people prove a negative, so that you don't have to provide positive evidence for your position. This is either dishonest or ignorant.

So the material is all that existing isn't a 'positive claim'? Pretty funny Phank, but I guess you are unable to admit that you base your claim in the same faith that you condemn others for having.

In any case, your response misses the point again. Yes, you show with your actions and words. And your actions and words are the result of mental activity. And mental activity can be examined, modeled, and tested. Presumably, such a PET scan (or whatever technique would be accurate) would predict the very words and actions you use, or the functional equivalent.

Two are linked together, so of course you're going to find a physical response. Is there something you can't understand about that simple conclusion?

[technomage]

What do they show?

Far more than I can discuss here. Start with the to linked documents below: if you ant more, you probably need to go talk to a neurologist.

* http://kyb.mpg.de/fileadmin/user_upl...ve_%5B0%5D.pdf
* http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1163454

The second study actually deals with negative emotional states, but reflects blood-flow and cognitive changes during emotional stimuli. The second study may require a subscription.

[technomage]

Now if you are done with the show, can you just debate what was said instead of trying to push my buttons?

I debate with those capable of answering the issues honestly.

[technomage]

Now if you are done with the show, can you just debate what was said instead of trying to push my buttons?

I debate with those capable of answering the issues honestly.

[lilpixieofterror]

I debate with those capable of answering the issues honestly.

Too bad I did, now if you want to take out your anger on others, go ahead and do whatever makes you feel better. I'm sure it is better then you know... actually debating the issues brought forth.

[phank]

So the material is all that existing isn't a 'positive claim'? Pretty funny Phank,

No, it is not a positive claim, nor is it the claim I'm making. The claim I'm making is that the material DOES exist. This is a positive claim, and can be supported. The claim that nothing else exists is a NEGATIVE claim, and can't be supported. It's not that complicated.

but I guess you are unable to admit that you base your claim in the same faith that you condemn others for having.

Now that you understand that "nothing immaterial exists" is a negative claim, you can apologize. If you're, uh, man enough.

Two are linked together, so of course you're going to find a physical response. Is there something you can't understand about that simple conclusion?

Apparently this is something else you don't understand. The claim here is that the two are THE SAME THING, viewed at different levels of abstraction. Just like the individual molecules of paint and the Mona Lisa are the same thing seen at different levels of abstraction. Not "linked together", but rather the SAME THING.

[phank]

Too bad I did, now if you want to take out your anger on others, go ahead and do whatever makes you feel better. I'm sure it is better then you know... actually debating the issues brought forth.

This is an excellent illustration of the intellectual dishonesty he was talking about! Talk about pushing buttons.

But for the record, your deliberate misinterpretation fools nobody, and if there's any anger it's yours (nobody else mentioned any), and these evasions are blathered in a deliberate attempt to AVOID a debate you realize you've long since lost hopelessly, but can't admit it. Which is as dishonest as your usual output.

But hey, if it makes you FEEL better...

[Whag]

Duh, of course it is physical, that doesn't explain though why you have a personality, beliefs, etc though whag because you can say, "Brain damage affects people's personalities!"

No, you distinguished the mental from the physical, but they are the same. The brain operates on a physical level and is the seat of personality.

Well yeah, sort of like how a car without a steering wheel will affect your ability to drive. We contain both a material and immaterial nature Whag and damage to one will affect the other. Dualism, I suggest you go and read about it.

Please explain how your immaterial nature affects your physical nature.

[Whag]

I know God through Jesus Christ who is God and revealed God to us. I am not special, in that anyone who places faith in God through Jesus Christ has the same access to God I do, so I do not make any claims that relate to anything good or better in me than anyone else (in fact, I am quite sure there are many people that do not believe in Jesus Christ that are in fact better people than I am in that sense). But only by placing faith in Christ can one come to the kind of knowledge of God I speak of. We could perhaps discuss what having faith in Christ means.

Okay, I think that's really what I was asking. I didn't think you were special or claiming to be special, but you did mention the acquisition of knowledge about someone. The only way to know God is to believe in him, and God teaches you about him. What does he teach you that I cannot know apart from "having faith" in him specifically?

I also would not claim to know God 'better' than you. I don't know who you are or anything about your sense of God or understanding of Him. However, I would say that the only way to properly be in relationship with God is to come to Him through Christ. But I don't say that on my own, that is in fact what Jesus Himself said about Himself.

I know many people who'd claim to have a relationship with God and would be inquisitive about why you think it not proper. Many people have been geographically and culturally excluded from having a "proper" relationship with God. it seems.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me".

So, If I believe Jesus is God, and that He knows what is required to know God, then I must defer to what He said about what is required to know God. I can't just decide I know better.


Jim

I defer to my point about culture and geography.

[lilpixieofterror]

No, you distinguished the mental from the physical, but they are the same. The brain operates on a physical level and is the seat of personality.

I love the stuffing words down my throat to make me say things I never said. Fun game, isn't it?

Please explain how your immaterial nature affects your physical nature.

So I have to describe something in detail, or it doesn't happen or exist? Ok, I will work on that and you can explain how dark matter and dark energy works, deal? Of course, if PHD physicists whom study this stuff for a living can't really explain it, what luck is there for you?

[lilpixieofterror]

This is an excellent illustration of the intellectual dishonesty he was talking about! Talk about pushing buttons.

He started it, but of course you would rather attack Christians then deal with facts, eh phank? How typical...

But for the record, your deliberate misinterpretation fools nobody, and if there's any anger it's yours (nobody else mentioned any), and these evasions are blathered in a deliberate attempt to AVOID a debate you realize you've long since lost hopelessly, but can't admit it. Which is as dishonest as your usual output.

I love people who claim magical mind reading powers. I'm not angry at all Phank, I'm just more capable of picking up people's emotional states then you are. If you think I am wrong though, go ahead and prove it or are your assertions all you got left?

But hey, if it makes you FEEL better...

Do you feel better after your little rant, little boy?

[phank]

Many people have been geographically and culturally excluded from having a "proper" relationship with God. it seems.

Well, not exactly. Circumstances of birth have ENABLED people to have profound religious experiences of all variety, and which variety they tend to have is highly correlated with the religion of the culture they were born into. Now, I suppose you could argue that Jim lucked out in being born into a culture whose religion he has taken to heart. OR, if one is from a different culture, one could regret how the accident of unfortunate parentage/local culture deprived Jim of the "one true religious experience", generally not available in his culture. And worse, has deluded Jim beyond all recognition, for his inadvertently having swallowed the codswallop that substitutes for True Faith in his benighted culture. Not his fault, of course, just an accident of geography, but LOOK what it's done to his mind!

[lilpixieofterror]

No, it is not a positive claim, nor is it the claim I'm making. The claim I'm making is that the material DOES exist. This is a positive claim, and can be supported. The claim that nothing else exists is a NEGATIVE claim, and can't be supported. It's not that complicated.

Awe, your frustrations are coming out? Really, so your belief that the material is all that exist doesn't need any sort of evidence because it is a 'negative claim' that conveniently doesn't need any evidence. Nice! Let me try this...

The belief that materal/immateral exist is backed by the fact the historical fact Jesus died and rose again.

There is positive evidence, you might say, "But it didn't happen and I need to prove it." Oh, I can play that game to, but how is having to prove material is all that exist a 'negative claim'? Sure, you do have to become all knowing, but how am I suppose to scientifically prove that the immaterial exist when well... it can't be measured by science to start with? You might as well ask me to scientifically prove that George Washington was the first president. In other works Phank, you really want that cake and you really want to eat it too, but as soon as you can prove your beliefs to 100% satisfaction, I'll do the same, deal?

Now that you understand that "nothing immaterial exists" is a negative claim, you can apologize. If you're, uh, man enough.

Oh dear... it is your belief and it isn't my fault that you belief has absolutely no evidence so you want to put it up in a way you don't have to defend it. AKA you want Christians to defend all their beliefs while you can cross your arms and refuse to defend any of yours. Nice! Let me try, "I don't have to produce evidence that the immateral and materal is all that exist cause it is a negative claim!" Well, looks like I have just done what you did, just place my belief in a category that can't be debated or refuted and I just have to let everybody else have to prove theirs to me.

Apparently this is something else you don't understand. The claim here is that the two are THE SAME THING, viewed at different levels of abstraction. Just like the individual molecules of paint and the Mona Lisa are the same thing seen at different levels of abstraction. Not "linked together", but rather the SAME THING.

Oh, I understand things just fine dear heart, I'm just not stuck in the idea that the material is all that exist and have to defend a view that has no evidence at all to back it, while of course, attacking Christians for holding views that you believe do not have any evidence. It is irony at it's finest.