Can o' worms: Soul

[ItsTheSheppy]

It should be mentioned that because we lack a solid explanation, at the moment, of why things are the way they are, does not mean that other imagined causes are true by default. God of the gaps, folks. This is junior-high level logical reasoning.

Until there is evidence to suggest that something like gods, or souls, or loch ness mosters exist, they can be dismissed without much thought given to them.

All gaps in our understanding mean is that we should work harder to find the truth, and not be satisfied with products borne purely of the imagination.

[Neurotoxin]

Originally Posted by Neurotoxin

Here's a curveball - teleporters. When you use a teleporter, does your entire being transfer across, or do you die and the version people see on the other side is a soulless replica?

Another version of this is the TRON digitizer. When The Dude is digitized into Encom's network, what happened to his soul? Dis it gut sucked in the machine too? Does that mean the MCP could have killed him and captured his soul, or would it have derezzed with the rest of his code?

Also, when does the soul begin? The moment a sperm finds its way in an egg? Or is it more along the Jewish traditional lines, where life only begins when God breathes your first breath into you? Where does it come from, does it grow with the fetus, or is it summoned down as raw ethereal matter from Heaven?

Not trollin', these are legitimate questions, this is the place to ask 'em. Anyone wanna give it a shot?

Also what part of a soul would transition to an afterlife? The thinking, good will towards others (part of thinking), physical appearance? Is that even the soul, or just body and brain?

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Neurotoxin

Not trollin', these are legitimate questions, this is the place to ask 'em. Anyone wanna give it a shot?

Also what part of a soul would transition to an afterlife? The thinking, good will towards others (part of thinking), physical appearance? Is that even the soul, or just body and brain?

Yeah, saw this question posted at Cracked. I agree with their assessment that at the moment that you're atomized, you're dead. Whoever you were is gone. What's assembled on the other side is your twin, and has all your memories and identity, but isn't you.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Elude

Assuming greater dimensions exists while also assuming that a line in 2d space can even think let alone comprehend what a cube is before questioning its existence.

It's one thing to believe in something you have no proof of, it's another to believe in something piled under other shit that you have no proof of. This is the very problem with religion.

Meh.

[Elude]

Originally Posted by Malorn

The point went right over this one.

The point you were making was that we are incapable of seeing beyond our constraints so it's safe to say there is something greater than what we know.

[Goku]

I personally think there is some kind of higher power out there/afterlife for numerous reasons. With that I do think there is something like the soul. In regards to science proving this I think it maybe possible one day, but likely not anytime soon. I just think we are still way behind finding out the true secrets of the universe (small or big), we've only scratched the surface so far.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I think a common fallacy that permeates our thinking about the universe is that it needs a reason. That there needs to be a 'purpose' or that there are hidden 'secrets' to unlock. What exactly is there that we don't know? We don't understand everything about the big bang, Quantum is a strange and mysterious realm, and parthenogenesis eludes us. But eventually, through tireless work, our best and brightest in the fields of physics, astronomy, biology and so forth will uncover these mysteries, which will undoubtedly lead to more.

Frankly, when we've got scientists discovering the Higgs Boson or debating the makeup of black holes and compressing the moments of the big bang down to millionths of a second, I find the conversation about whether or not we're all magical ghosts riding around in sacks of meat , having never before existed but somehow existing forever afterward, to be quite silly.

[Elude]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Exactly. Humans are the know-it-all teenagers of the Universe, 100% provided for by mommy and daddy (earth and sun). We have lots of growing up to do.

No, just because we are bound by constraints does not mean there is something beyond our knowledge. While as likely as it is it's still not definitive proof.

Throwing in placeholders is a bad idea, especially when you start throwing in more than one stacked on top of others.

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

I think a common fallacy that permeates our thinking about the universe is that it needs a reason. That there needs to be a 'purpose' or that there are hidden 'secrets' to unlock. What exactly is there that we don't know? We don't understand everything about the big bang, Quantum is a strange and mysterious realm, and parthenogenesis eludes us. But eventually, through tireless work, our best and brightest in the fields of physics, astronomy, biology and so forth will uncover these mysteries, which will undoubtedly lead to more.

Frankly, when we've got scientists discovering the Higgs Boson or debating the makeup of black holes and compressing the moments of the big bang down to millionths of a second, I find the conversation about whether or not we're all magical ghosts riding around in sacks of meat , having never before existed but somehow existing forever afterward, to be quite silly.

First I'll start with the end statement -- who ever said that we never before existed but somehow will exist afterwards? Well, now that I think of it, probably a lot of people, but that there is the real fallacy.

As for the bolded part, let me show you a few things:

The pancreas, having been discovered by the ancient greeks, had its purpose only recently discovered.

Check out The Quantum Activist -- it proposes many questions which most of us have probably never even thought of. On that note, you might find it interesting to know that most theoretical physicists DO believe in larger intelligence and/or souls.

Speaking of theoretical physicists, and of what we do or do not know, check out Dr. Michio Kaku's work. His goal in life since his college years has been to finish Einstein's "Theory of Everything," something that still eludes him and his colleagues to this day. There is currently no universal theory. Quantum Physics and Relativity, both essentially proven to be true, have fundamental differences which make both of them simultaneously correct and incorrect (kind of like that dude's cat; pun intended).




You're right about the purpose fallacy imo; but that's also not to say that nothing has a purpose and that purpose is simply made up, but that purpose is not necessarily/scientifically requisite; we just don't know. Furthermore one can ask the question "do souls have/have to have a purpose?" or even "what is the purpose of souls?" Neither of these will be answered in our lifetimes is my guess.







EDIT: Sorry, I think I misread your first statement and I guess ultimately I'm just agreeing with you lol.

Originally Posted by Elude

No, just because we are bound by constraints does not mean there is something beyond our knowledge. While as likely as it is it's still not definitive proof.

Throwing in placeholders is a bad idea, especially when you start throwing in more than one stacked on top of others.

Unfortunately math is not on your side my friend. There are one of three possible scenarios: Our universe is infinite, there are infinite universes, or both. If something in the universe(s) is possible, with only one of two outcomes, it literally has a .5∞ chance of occurring. And half of infinity is still infinity.

Similarly the only people who would discredit the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence (a.k.a. aliens) will soon (imo) find their beliefs severely shaken. In the last decade or so alone we have discovered dozens of planets capable of supporting human life in most ways but a few (some planets will have surface temperatures in the hundreds, while others will have gravity of 15+G's, etc...). This is just within a few hundred light years of earth, and we are by no means done searching just our little corner of the galaxy alone. There is still the rest of the galaxy to explore, and then entire other galaxies (and ours is a medium sized galaxy; slightly smaller if you average all known galaxies). By the way there's an estimated 125 billion galaxies in the known universe. Again, that's just the known universe, and again if we are assuming the first scenario of an infinite universe, then there WILL be infinite galaxies.






My question to the nay sayers -- why is it you want to believe souls (or whatever else has not been "proven" yet) do not exist? Not tryin to be a dick I'm just legit curious.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Saifoda

First I'll start with the end statement -- who ever said that we never before existed but somehow will exist afterwards? Well, now that I think of it, probably a lot of people, but that there is the real fallacy.

As for the bolded part, let me show you a few things:

The pancreas, having been discovered by the ancient greeks, had its purpose only recently discovered.

Check out The Quantum Activist -- it proposes many questions which most of us have probably never even thought of. On that note, you might find it interesting to know that most theoretical physicists DO believe in larger intelligence and/or souls.

Speaking of theoretical physicists, and of what we do or do not know, check out Dr. Michio Kaku's work. His goal in life since his college years has been to finish Einstein's "Theory of Everything," something that still eludes him and his colleagues to this day. There is currently no universal theory. Quantum Physics and Relativity, both essentially proven to be true, have fundamental differences which make both of them simultaneously correct and incorrect (kind of like that dude's cat; pun intended).




You're right about the purpose fallacy imo; but that's also not to say that nothing has a purpose and that purpose is simply made up, but that purpose is not necessarily/scientifically requisite; we just don't know. Furthermore one can ask the question "do souls have/have to have a purpose?" or even "what is the purpose of souls?" Neither of these will be answered in our lifetimes is my guess.

It's a shame you put all that effort in, because I think you misunderstood me. I meant what is there that we don't even know... about the purpose of the universe? I'm aware that there is more we don't know about the natural sciences than what we do. I was talking more about fuzzy questions about meaning and purpose, and I'm pretty sure the answer we've come to is "There isn't; just don't be a dick."

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

It's a shame you put all that effort in, because I think you misunderstood me. I meant what is there that we don't even know... about the purpose of the universe? I'm aware that there is more we don't know about the natural sciences than what we do. I was talking more about fuzzy questions about meaning and purpose, and I'm pretty sure the answer we've come to is "There isn't; just don't be a dick."

Yeah after I typed all that I looked back at your post and went "oh........." lol. I've been sick the last few days so I don't like to open my eyes much lol. <3


EDIT: I kept it up though cause I do think people would get a real kick out of watching the quantum activist and reading up on Kaku's work; my favorite book of his is Physics of the Future -- it's like porn for scifi freaks.

[Elude]

Originally Posted by Saifoda

Similarly the only people who would discredit the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence (a.k.a. aliens) will soon (imo) find their beliefs severely shaken. In the last decade or so alone we have discovered dozens of planets capable of supporting human life in most ways but a few (some planets will have surface temperatures in the hundreds, while others will have gravity of 15+G's, etc...). This is just within a few hundred light years of earth, and we are by no means done searching just our little corner of the galaxy alone. There is still the rest of the galaxy to explore, and then entire other galaxies (and ours is a medium sized galaxy; slightly smaller if you average all known galaxies). By the way there's an estimated 125 billion galaxies in the known universe. Again, that's just the known universe, and again if we are assuming the first scenario of an infinite universe, then there WILL be infinite galaxies.

My question to the nay sayers -- why is it you want to believe souls (or whatever else has not been "proven" yet) do not exist? Not tryin to be a dick I'm just legit curious.

The only people who would have their beliefs shaken are the ones who bind themselves to the point where it becomes a delusional fact in their minds as well as those who have multiple beliefs supporting each other.

I honestly don't care if you believe in god, aliens, or the afterlife. It's when someone uses something yet to be proven to support their beliefs I have a problem with.

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by Elude

The only people who would have their beliefs shaken are the ones who bind themselves to the point where it becomes a delusional fact in their minds as well as those who have multiple beliefs supporting each other.

I honestly don't care if you believe in god, aliens, or the afterlife. It's when someone uses something yet to be proven to support their beliefs I have a problem with.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at when you quoted me.

[Elude]

I don't think anyone who disbelieves in aliens would be shaken if we discovered them, so long as their belief stayed a belief rather than some delusional idea that they've convinced themselves without a doubt to be true.

People who also use multiple beliefs to support a series of beliefs might also be shaken by future discoveries if those discoveries contradict their beliefs.

[Saifoda]

I think I get it now.


I think you and I believe differently about the word belief (pun intended). I was having a conversation recently with somebody about what passion is and means (in reference to work and life; i.e. "my passion is skiing.") A "weaker," as I have termed it, version of "passion" is something that one pursues at convenience (then of course we have to define what convenience means) and as soon as it becomes inconvenient (depending on the individual, but there are ways to measure it) they will cease to do whatever that passion is. A "stronger" version of the definition of passion would be that even once it becomes inconvenient (scaled again) to the individual, they still pursue it. I think this can similarly be applied to the term believe/belief. You are asserting the "weaker" (which does not imply that your definition is less correct -- just different) definition, whereas I have been speaking of the "stronger" definition.

But anywho, yes you're very correct about multiple beliefs as well. Another unfortunate thing is that people will hold beliefs based on "facts" or beliefs which later turn out to be proven false and either the "child" belief (the one supported by the previously-but-now-false belief) will be so imbedded as a belief that even the rational acceptance of the former belief being false will not alter said child belief. Furthermore there is just so much damn information that when certain information changes it may go unnoticed -- unfortunately people don't get a facebook notification.