Morality or Obedience?

[JonathanL]

I disagree.

I don't understand how a soul would interact with something physical such as the brain. It is no more of a stretch than to just have the brain give you these traits.

And why do you need to understand how the interaction between the soul and the brain works in order to believe in it? I bet you believe in countless things that you're unable to, and never will be able to, explain, so one more item to that list would hardly make a difference.

It is weird because I find having a soul cheapens the resurrection. If Jesus' soul was not destroyed by death, how are we now saved? Jesus' destruction had to be complete for the full atonement to take place. IMO

Check our Glenn Peoples podcast on the topic, he covers all of this.

My problem with physicalism is that it literally makes the resurrection impossible for anyone who dies before Jesus returns. Your problem with mind-body dualism is some sort of imagined problem of your own (as in "you physicalists") making. There's nothing in the Bible that says Jesus destruction had to be complete for the full atonement to take place.


And if there were, then Jesus' words on the Cross asking God why He had abandoned Him would "solve" that problem. Death of the soul is the same as loss of relationship with God, so if Jesus had to undergo spiritual death in order for us to be fully redeemed it seems that there's verses in the Bible that possibly shows that's what happened, depending on how you interpret them (for the record I'm personally on the fence of what theses passages, such as the "abandonment passage above" really mean).

[Tassman]

And why do you need to understand how the interaction between the soul and the brain works in order to believe in it? I bet you believe in countless things that you're unable to, and never will be able to, explain, so one more item to that list would hardly make a difference.

Firstly, why would you assume that a 'soul' exists, where is the evidence? Secondly, what would the nexus (i.e. the point of connection) be between the immaterial soul and the material body?

[JonathanL]

Firstly, why would you assume that a 'soul' exists, where is the evidence? Secondly, what would the nexus (i.e. the point of connection) be between the immaterial soul and the material body?

I assume a "soul" exists, either as an independent entity (the view I personally hold to) or as an emergent property of the brain, because materialism is unable to, and can't even in theory, account for qualia. And no, advances in neuroscience won't ever solve this problem.


As for your second question: I don't really know. Maybe the brain is that connection. It's not something I've cared too much about.

[JimL]

I believe you are an idiot.

I see. So in other words not being able to defend that belief of yours concerning the Magi and the star, you felt your only alternative was to attack me personally.

[JimL]

Umm....no. While the brain is the location of the phenomenon we call “mind,” every indication suggests that the mind is an emergent property of that organ. So they are not, strictly speaking, synonymous. In much the same way, life is an emergent property of the complex arrangement of matter we call our bodies.

What do you mean when you define the mind as an "emergent property"? Properties of matter are still matter, and not things in themselves. Are you suggesting that you think of the mind in the same sense as the christian thinks of the spirit, or soul.

[element771]

I see. So in other words not being able to defend that belief of yours concerning the Magi and the star, you felt your only alternative was to attack me personally.

You don’t seem to be able to read what I write. I cited research by a scientist from Oxford that indicates the birth narrative may have a historical basis as far as the astronomical record is concerned.

It’s an interesting read....the evidence for a comet is pretty persuasive. That’s all I said.

But go ahead, remain ignorant and not read it. Both you and Tass immediately say you think it’s nonsense without even reading what the guy has to say. This isn’t pseudoscience ...like I said, he is at Oxford and regularly collaborates with an atheist for the astronomy parts. But I really don’t care either way.

It’s funny to see how your thought process works. Anything that supports the historicity of the Bible is rejected a priori. You already know it’s nonsense. This is another piece of evidence that you really don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t read about things your don’t know about because you feel that you already know everything.

[JimL]

You don’t seem to be able to read what I write. I cited research by a scientist from Oxford that indicates the birth narrative may have a historical basis as far as the astronomical record is concerned.

Which if you read the narrative in Matthew 2:1-12, with an open mind, ya know, actually think about it, then you'll recognize any such explanation to be nonsense.

It’s an interesting read....the evidence for a comet is pretty persuasive. That’s all I said.

Comets don't stop and go, wait for the magi to do their business in Jerusalum, then go again, and then stop just above the designated spot, the Bethleham manger. The evidence for such a comet is not pretty persuasive at all.

But go ahead, remain ignorant and not read it. Both you and Tass immediately say you think it’s nonsense without even reading what the guy has to say. This isn’t pseudoscience ...like I said, he is at Oxford and regularly collaborates with an atheist for the astronomy parts. But I really don’t care either way.

It’s funny to see how your thought process works. Anything that supports the historicity of the Bible is rejected a priori. You already know it’s nonsense. This is another piece of evidence that you really don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t read about things your don’t know about because you feel that you already know everything.

Wrong, the bible was obviously set in history, but the comet, like much of the fable woven therein, is only evidence to the gullible, it makes no sense whatsoever, and neither does your "he's at Oxford" guys explanation help it at all.

[element771]

Comets don't stop and go, wait for the magi to do their business in Jerusalum, then go again, and then stop just above the designated spot, the Bethleham manger. The evidence for such a comet is not pretty persuasive at all.

Are you serious?!?

Comets don't appear to be stopped in the night sky?!?!

Comets don't appear in different areas of the night sky as they progress through their orbits?!?!

Yeah, don't bother reading the article....you wouldn't understand it.

Wrong, the bible was obviously set in history, but the comet, like much of the fable woven therein, is only evidence to the gullible, it makes no sense whatsoever, and neither does your "he's at Oxford" guys explanation help it at all.

It makes no sense to you because you don't understand the underlying concepts.

Not to mention, you have not read any to the data....

Have you ever heard of the Dunning Kruger effect? Seems like it may speak toward your cognitive abilities.

[carpedm9587]

I could agree to all of this and still hold to the position (were I a physicalist) that destruction of the brain is the same as destruction of the self. In my view transferring the mind from the brain to something else (whatever that something might be) would not be a case of actual transferring, but of copying. And a copy of your mind, no matter how identical, would still not be the same as your mind. You would be creating a distinct individual who would be acting completely independently from the original person.

There is no doubt, if one were to duplicate the brain and the original remained viable...you would then have two individuals. The fact that their experiences from the moment of duplication, would be different, leads to two distinct persona rooted in a common origin. All other things being equal, I would then assume the original body/mind would be the original person, and the second a new person rooted in the identity of the first. But if the intent was to grant the original a new extension on life by transferring their memories and thought processes into a new biological or bionic matrix?

It's an interesting thought experiment. If that moment were ever to arise, I doubt that either of our pronouncements would have much weight. I wonder what the individuals themselves would say?

[carpedm9587]

What do you mean when you define the mind as an "emergent property"? Properties of matter are still matter, and not things in themselves. Are you suggesting that you think of the mind in the same sense as the christian thinks of the spirit, or soul.

No. But consider the following: the brain in a living skull is not substantively different from the brain in a coroner's dish after being excised from the skull. The difference, AFAIK, is electrochemical activity: the brain in a living body is electrochemically active - the brain in a jar of formaldehyde is not. This suggests to me that "mind" is not simply a function of the matter of the brain - but also a function of its electrochemical activity. Indeed, since a brain without electrochemical activity exhibits no mind, and a brain with such activity does, one might speculate that "mind" is more related to electrochemical activity than it is to the matter of the brain.

Analogously, the series of instructions we know as "MS Excel" are meaningless without an processor on which they can be executed, but that processor, by itself, cannot manifest "spreadsheets." Ergo, mind is dependent on brain, but not equivalent to it.

[carpedm9587]

Are you serious?!?

Comets don't appear to be stopped in the night sky?!?!

Comets don't appear in different areas of the night sky as they progress through their orbits?!?!

Yeah, don't bother reading the article....you wouldn't understand it.



It makes no sense to you because you don't understand the underlying concepts.

Not to mention, you have not read any to the data....

Have you ever heard of the Dunning Kruger effect? Seems like it may speak toward your cognitive abilities.

Owww....harsh...


But how would any of us know if we were subject to it?

[JonathanL]

But if the intent was to grant the original a new extension on life by transferring their memories and thought processes into a new biological or bionic matrix?

It's an interesting thought experiment. If that moment were ever to arise, I doubt that either of our pronouncements would have much weight. I wonder what the individuals themselves would say?

I don't. Their thoughts on the matter wouldn't hold any more weight than mine or yours. The persons in question wouldn't be in any better position to know if they were one and the same person in two different bodies any more than we would.

[carpedm9587]

I don't. Their thoughts on the matter wouldn't hold any more weight than mine or yours. The persons in question wouldn't be in any better position to know if they were one and the same person in two different bodies any more than we would.

True enough. I come to my conclusions on the basis of an assumption: another being with exactly my memories and thought processes would be cognitively identical to me - so they would BE me. Indeedm without the continuity of biology, there would be no basis for knowing which of two such entities would be the "original."

[element771]

Owww....harsh...


But how would any of us know if we were subject to it?

Humility.

Also, the desire to learn through debate instead of assuming one already knows everything. There was no reading or learning in his posts...only arrogance and worse yet, arrogance about his ignorance.

[Tassman]

I assume a "soul" exists, either as an independent entity (the view I personally hold to) or as an emergent property of the brain, because materialism is unable to, and can't even in theory, account for qualia. And no, advances in neuroscience won't ever solve this problem.

You don’t know that the brain is unable to account for qualia or that neuroscience won't ever solve the problem; this is an argument from ignorance. Humans aren’t the only creatures that have the subjective, qualitative properties of experiences that we refer to as qualia. Our primate cousins do as well, which suggests that it is just a physical property of advanced species. Also, it will likely be an experience of advanced AI entities. I’m sure you’re not suggesting that chimpanzees and advanced robots have eternal souls, otherwise heaven will be a very interesting place with its humans, chimpanzees and robots as denizens.

As for your second question: I don't really know. Maybe the brain is that connection. It's not something I've cared too much about.

The brain is a material entity; the alleged soul is an immaterial entity. There is no way the two could connect. There’s no possible nexus.