|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 03/12/2006 : 18:45:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
What is your body composed of? Most consider us to be carbon based, but actually by weight, we are water based. Still more interesting is that by volume our corpses are predominately SPACE. Might there be something unseen mixed in - something ethereal. Not in a different plane, not something spiritual, something completely physical - just not material (having the property of mass).
Fine. Describe an experiment which could strengthen or falsify the idea that your "existence" is non-material.quote:
Until mankind can figure himself out - we certainly can't claim that there's intelligent life on THIS planet.
Worthless postmodernist sentiments, there. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 18:47:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Why, indeed. Actually the meaning of life is simple "NOT DEAD".
And there are a lot more ways of being dead. Therefore, |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 18:48:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
And I don't see any evidence that anyone's "essence" (whatever that is) will continue to exist after bodily death. Because as a skeptic (not a true believer) I'd like to see some evidence supporting that claim. With billions of "essences" existing eternally, I would think there would be some evidence of their existence.
Don't look now, but there's 6 billion out there of the human variety, probably a few quintillion if you add in the other varieties...and those are just the LIVE ones. I understand the dead ones are probably really small and much harder to detect. I'd sure like to see 'em discovered, but much like the Neanderthal's couldn't detect microbes I don't think Homo Sapiens is advanced enough to figure it out...gonna have to wait a while. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/12/2006 18:50:20 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 19:01:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
What is your body composed of? Most consider us to be carbon based, but actually by weight, we are water based. Still more interesting is that by volume our corpses are predominately SPACE. Might there be something unseen mixed in - something ethereal. Not in a different plane, not something spiritual, something completely physical - just not material (having the property of mass).
Fine. Describe an experiment which could strengthen or falsify the idea that your "existence" is non-material.
I'd be a VERY wealthy man if I could do that. I understand not too long ago there were bona fide experiments to try to detect minute weight changes on animals (and even humans if I remember correctly) who were in the throes of dying. They were, of course, betting on the probability that the "soul" has mass and would leave the body before it rots. Neither may be the case.
Most women are VERY grateful that we begin the life cycle encorporated in a TINY glob of flesh - and then eat our way to more generous proportions. This would seem to indicate the initial volume of the "soul" is at best minute. And there is no guarantee that it has the property of mass. If such is the case, it will, indeed, be interesting to see how something without that property controls matter - does it act as a catalyst? Is there a synergistic reaction that lets it dominate material particles?
quote:
quote:
Until mankind can figure himself out - we certainly can't claim that there's intelligent life on THIS planet.
Worthless postmodernist sentiments, there.
Yeah -  |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 19:08:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
I'd be a VERY wealthy man if I could do that.
Thanks for admitting that you haven't a hope of demonstrating your assertions to be true.quote:
I understand not too long ago there were bona fide experiments to try to detect minute weight changes on animals (and even humans if I remember correctly) who were in the throes of dying. They were, of course, betting on the probability that the "soul" has mass and would leave the body before it rots. Neither may be the case.
Indeed, so that was completely irrelevant to this discussion.quote:
Most women are VERY grateful that we begin the life cycle encorporated in a TINY glob of flesh - and then eat our way to more generous proportions. This would seem to indicate the initial volume of the "soul" is at best minute.
Why would you ever think of applying the concept of "volume" to something you assert to be non-material?quote:
And there is no guarantee that it has the property of mass.
Yes, I know what "non-material" means.quote:
If such is the case, it will, indeed, be interesting to see how something without that property controls matter - does it act as a catalyst? Is there a synergistic reaction that lets it dominate material particles?
No, there'd be an entirely new field of physics to deal with it.quote:
quote:
quote:
Until mankind can figure himself out - we certainly can't claim that there's intelligent life on THIS planet.
Worthless postmodernist sentiments, there.
Yeah -
Okay, I'll just ignore it, then. Are you prone to postmodernist thinking in general, or was that a special case? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 19:28:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck
And I don't see any evidence that anyone's "essence" (whatever that is) will continue to exist after bodily death. Because as a skeptic (not a true believer) I'd like to see some evidence supporting that claim. With billions of "essences" existing eternally, I would think there would be some evidence of their existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't look now, but there's 6 billion out there of the human variety, probably a few quintillion if you add in the other varieties...and those are just the LIVE ones. I understand the dead ones are probably really small and much harder to detect. I'd sure like to see 'em discovered, but much like the Neanderthal's couldn't detect microbes I don't think Homo Sapiens is advanced enough to figure it out...gonna have to wait a while.
Why do you assume that such a thing as an eternal essence even exists? What evidence, not supposition, but evidence, do you have supporting it's existence?
By the way, neither we nor Neanderthals have detected the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No matter how "advanced" we become, we will never actually detect that which does not exist. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 20:11:24 [Permalink]
|
THoR wrote: quote:
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Isn't it just amazing that thousands of years of great minds from all over the world have been debating over a point that was apparently as obvious as 1=1? Those silly philosophers.
My sentiment exactly. Actually the concept of a soul or spirit or something which remains of the "id-entity" after the body falls off has a history as old as mankind.
Sarcasm really escapes you, doesn't it?
What the hell do you mean the concept of “a soul or spirit or something which remains of the id-entity” is as old as mankind? First of all, written history does not go back that far, so it is false to make such a claim. Second of all, if we start with written history, plenty of the most ancient civilizations did not believe in souls. You know, like the Jews. Read the Old Testament.
“The immortality of the soul was nowhere plain in the Old Testament, was denied by the Sadducees, the most philosophical part of the Jewish Nation… was thought doubtful by most sets of the Greek philosophers and denied by the Stoics, the most religious sect of them all; had never, according to Cicero, been asserted in writing by any Greek extant in his time… and was first taught by the Egyptians.” –Anthony Collins (British atheist who lived from 1676-1729.)
You are talking like this is an obvious conclusion, which is pretty ironic considering that it has been the deepest philosophical thinkers in history (you know, like Buddha, the Greek philosophers, Confucius…) who've most doubted the concept of a human soul.
THoR also wrote: quote:
Say the being inside is analogous to a software program and the corpse is analogous to a computer. One is NOT the other, but there is a synergy within which both evolve as each others' features are improved over time.
Well there's a useless analogy if I ever saw one. First of all, all computers are part software. They need a basic instruction set in order to read any other external software. Second of all, software is made up of parts and is itself a physical thing!
What is the essentialness of this soul you talk of? It can't include memory since we know memory can be altered by damage to the brain (senility, Alzheimer's disease, brain injury). It can't be emotion since that can be altered too (psych meds, mental disease). And our intelligence/ability to reason – that is also influenced by how our brains are hooked up (intelligence varies depending on a slew of environmental factors, as well as genetics). Hmmm… with no physical body we have no memories, no emotions, and no rational thought. I fail to see what is left over of “me” after my body dies.
Extropians believe we'll eventually be able to scan our minds and preserve that software to upload into new bodies, and thus live a lot longer. But even they acknowledge that the “software” would be made up of information that must be encoded physically, thus it is still and always dependent on some sort of hardware to continuing existing intact, and it is still made up of parts.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/12/2006 20:13:46 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 02:35:02 [Permalink]
|
The blasphemous and hell-bound fiend, R. Wreck stated:
quote:
By the way, neither we nor Neanderthals have detected the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No matter how "advanced" we become, we will never actually detect that which does not exist.
I beg your pardon, sir! How dare you?!!
The Flying Spaghetti Monster most certainly does exist! I know this for a FACT 'cause I saw, with my own eyes, His Blessed Image on a computer monitor....
I also once saw Him on a stale biscuit but before I could get it on Ebay, my house 'possum ate it.
There! Definitive proof of the existence of the glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster! Let us have no more of this foul heresy.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 03:31:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Don't look now, but there's 6 billion out there of the human variety, probably a few quintillion if you add in the other varieties...and those are just the LIVE ones.
I understand the dead ones are probably really small and much harder to detect.
Which particular tome of infallible knowledge did you dredge that from? Seeing as you "understand" they're really small, do you think it's just a matter of optical resolution? Perhaps there's some other means of detection that could be developed if you'd just let us in on a little more of your knowledge, sensors have come a long way you know.
By which logical process did you deduce that dead ones are different from live ones?
What exactly does "probably" mean in the context of your evidence? |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 08:35:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
What is your body composed of? Most consider us to be carbon based, but actually by weight, we are water based.
It's not water that makes us what we are, living. It's the proteins and DNA. Water is just the solution in which the essential living processes takes place.
While we are "ugly sacks of mostly water", it's not the water that makes us tick. The ocean is not living, the cloud is not living. The glass of water I'm currently looking at is not living. It's the carbon-based microbes in the water that is living.
quote:
Still more interesting is that by volume our corpses are predominately SPACE.
That depends entirely on your perspective, and point of view. Since the electron and the quarks are described as wave functions, they are not particles in their very essence. As such they do not have a volume either. So in fact, ALL 100.00000% of our body is SPACE. However, the Pauli Exclusion Principle enable us to relate to electrons, protons, and neutrons as particles. It also enable us to view atoms as particles. Suddenly we're not that much empty space (blonds excluded  ).
quote:
Might there be something unseen mixed in - something ethereal. Not in a different plane, not something spiritual, something completely physical - just not material (having the property of mass).
Nothing such has been found, after centuries of looking. (hint: you're not the first one to propose this) The lack of substantial (pun intended) evidence leads us to conclude that it is unlikely that we will ever find such. After all, a piece of rock is not sentient.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/13/2006 08:37:14 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 16:31:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy:
The blasphemous and hell-bound fiend, R. Wreck stated:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, neither we nor Neanderthals have detected the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No matter how "advanced" we become, we will never actually detect that which does not exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I beg your pardon, sir! How dare you?!!
The Flying Spaghetti Monster most certainly does exist! I know this for a FACT 'cause I saw, with my own eyes, His Blessed Image on a computer monitor....
I also once saw Him on a stale biscuit but before I could get it on Ebay, my house 'possum ate it.
There! Definitive proof of the existence of the glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster! Let us have no more of this foul heresy.
A thousand pardons, o venerable pastafarian. Please spare me the wrath of the Hypnotoad for my indescretion. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2006 : 15:49:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
I'd be a VERY wealthy man if I could do that.
Thanks for admitting that you haven't a hope of demonstrating your assertions to be true.
If we stop looking, we'll never find it
quote:
quote:
I understand not too long ago there were bona fide experiments to try to detect minute weight changes on animals (and even humans if I remember correctly) who were in the throes of dying. They were, of course, betting on the probability that the "soul" has mass and would leave the body before it rots. Neither may be the case.
Indeed, so that was completely irrelevant to this discussion.
If we stop looking, we'll never find it
quote:
quote:
Most women are VERY grateful that we begin the life cycle encorporated in a TINY glob of flesh - and then eat our way to more generous proportions. This would seem to indicate the initial volume of the "soul" is at best minute.
Why would you ever think of applying the concept of "volume" to something you assert to be non-material?
Space occupies volume last time I checked - else the Universe would be a solid block of critical mass with nowhere to explode 
quote:
quote:
And there is no guarantee that it has the property of mass.
Yes, I know what "non-material" means.quote:
If such is the case, it will, indeed, be interesting to see how something without that property controls matter - does it act as a catalyst? Is there a synergistic reaction that lets it dominate material particles?
No, there'd be an entirely new field of physics to deal with it.quote:
quote:
quote:
Until mankind can figure himself out - we certainly can't claim that there's intelligent life on THIS planet.
Worthless postmodernist sentiments, there.
Yeah -
Okay, I'll just ignore it, then. Are you prone to postmodernist thinking in general, or was that a special case?
I'm more prone to post-Neanderthal thinking.
I have a huge problem with the inconsistency of a composite having a single identity. Every particle in the cosmos has its own unique history.
Something must exist in order to experience. And an existence - by definition - is AN existence, not a composite. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2006 : 16:18:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have a huge problem with the inconsistency of a composite having a single identity. Every particle in the cosmos has its own unique history
And when you can produce, mathematically describe, or even logically deduce the existance of one of these "me" particles... you'll be on to somehting.
All you have now is an unevidenced assertion that fails even simple examination and logical tests.
You have yet to even offer an explanation of why you dismiss the concept of emergent properties.
 is all you have.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2006 : 21:46:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
If we stop looking, we'll never find it
If we look in the wrong direction, we'll never find it, either.quote:
Space occupies volume last time I checked - else the Universe would be a solid block of critical mass with nowhere to explode
Indeed, but since when has space ever been non-material?quote:
I'm more prone to post-Neanderthal thinking.
Ah, an insult. I see.quote:
I have a huge problem with the inconsistency of a composite having a single identity.
I don't think reality gives a rat's ass about your incredulity.quote:
Every particle in the cosmos has its own unique history.
Every set of particles has a unique history aside from the unique histories of the particles it comprises. Pick any two neutrons in the universe. The history of the location of the center of mass of those two particles will not be the same as the history of the location of either particle. The distance between those two neutrons has a history which neither neutron by itself can have at all (because you can't have a distance between two things when you've only got one thing). Why you deny the reality of emergent properties is beyond my comprehension, why don't you lay out the logic behind it?quote:
Something must exist in order to experience. And an existence - by definition - is AN existence, not a composite.
Well, I guess I simply don't agree with your limited, self-serving definition of "existence," just like I didn't agree with it in the other thread. Would you really deny the existence of a center of mass between two neutrons? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2006 : 23:51:37 [Permalink]
|
Filthy, now that's a picture I like.  The pasta guy. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/14/2006 23:52:15 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
