I didn't write this and wish I knew who to credit, however I don't. Regardless, it is an excellent read and most definitely thought provoking. As my dear Aussie mate said after reading it, "70 billion people have lived since we dropped out of the trees. Where would they all fit if they were 'hanging around' or 'came back'?" Hmmmmmm....

The soul is imaginary..... he doesn't have one. Nobody does!

If you are a Christian, then Jesus promises that your soul will have everlasting life. In John 3:16 the Bible says: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." All that you have to do is believe in Jesus and your soul gets to go to heaven.

But have you ever really thought about your soul? Have you ever thought
about how the afterlife would work? Which life forms get an afterlife and which do not?

Start with a bacterium. Does it have a soul and does it get an afterlife? A bacterium is a cell membrane filled with a variety of molecules. These molecules react together in different ways to create what we call life. Although all of these molecules are reacting in fascinating, interlocking ways, they are still nothing more than chemicals reacting. The "miracle of life" is no miracle --
it is a big chemical reaction. When those reactions stop, the cell is dead.

Now here is the question: When the bacterium dies, does it get an afterlife?

There are not many people in the United States who believe that bacteria go
to heaven. The Bible does not talk about heaven being filled with all the
disease, putrefaction and pestilence that bacteria cause. And what, exactly,
would go to heaven? Do all of the bacterium's molecules get transported to
another dimension so that they can keep reacting? If that were happening, there would be thousands of tons of chemicals leaving earth every day. Clearly there is no afterlife for bacteria cells.

What about mosquitoes? A mosquito is much more complex than a bacterium
cell. For one thing, a mosquito is a multi-cellular insect with amazing capabilities. But if you look at each cell in a mosquito, it is very much like a bacterium in its basic functioning.

Do mosquitoes get an afterlife? Clearly not. Think of how many mosquitoes have lived and died over the course of millions of years. No one imagines heaven being full of septillions of everlasting mosquitoes.
There is also the problem that we saw with bacteria -- the only way for
a mosquito to go to heaven would be to somehow transport all the
chemicals in a mosquito from earth to heaven.

What about mice? They are no different from mosquitoes. Mice are
multicellular organisms, but each cell is a little chemical factory very
much like a bacterium. Dogs? Ditto. Chimps? Ditto.

So what about humans?

The human body is nothing but a set of chemical reactions. The chemical
reactions powering a human life are no different from the reactions powering
the life of a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. When a human
being dies, the chemical reactions stop. There is no "soul" mixed in with the chemicals, just like there is no soul in a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. Why would there be an afterlife for the chemicals that make up a human body?

The whole notion of your "soul" is completely imaginary. The concept of a "soul" has been invented by religion because many people have trouble facing their own mortality. It makes people feel better, but the concept is a complete fabrication.

It is when you think about the chemical reactions powering your life and your brain that you realize how completely imaginary your "soul" truly is. And at that point, everything about religion comes unraveled.

Think back to when you were a kid and you realized that Santa was imaginary. As soon as you knew it, it was obvious. Reindeer cannot fly. A man cannot slide down chimneys. There is no way for one little sleigh to carry all the toys for all the kids in the world. Etc. It is obvious that Santa is make believe.

In the same way, it is obvious that human beings are big, walking chemical reactions (see this article for a description of how the reactions work). Your "soul" is make believe just like Santa. When the chemical reactions cease, you die. That is the end of it.

Knowing this, you can see that everything about religion is imaginary. God, the Bible, Jesus, the resurrection, prayer, the Ten Commandments, the creation story, your soul, everlasting life, heaven... every bit of it is the product of human imagination. The same goes for Allah, the Koran and so on. As a species we have believed all of this religious dogma for centuries, and most of us believe it today to some degree. And yet... it is all fiction. Today's "God" is just as fictional as were the gods of the Egyptians, the Romans and the Aztecs.

Mormons believe that ALL life will be resurrected.

See the references at http://packham.n4m.org/animals.htm

So, that settles that!

Note: This is not a 'religion' version of a soul as far as I know as I do not belong to any 'religion'. However, I do have strong beliefs based on 'experiences' and study.

I believe the 'soul' is easier to understand if you try to avoid the human terms as those are 'temporary' only to the 'true' identity of a soul!

A soul, although it can take many forms, is a mass/ball of energy, intelligence and spirit based on its 'experiences' ----- just like God but less than.

A soul is only 'temporarily' a mouse or a person ---- those have to be considered like a 'change of clothing' and when they wear out the soul, after returning to the 'between life', eventually gets a new 'change of clothing' or some do not continue to reincarnate.

It's fine with me that you consider many of the things I have had 'experiences' with 'imaginary'. Please continue to "totally discount" the libraries full of books where people continue to write about many 'imaginary' things for whatever reason. Many more people experience these 'imaginary' things that never write books or publish their experiences.

But it is all ok with me ---- people deserve to form their own opinions!

I believe the 'soul' is easier to understand if you try to avoid the human terms as those are 'temporary' only to the 'true' identity of a soul!

COMMENT: How could it possibly be "easier" to understand anything by avoiding "human terms." What terms do you suggest? Animal terms? Alien terms?

________________________________________

A soul, although it can take many forms, is a mass/ball of energy, intelligence and spirit based on its 'experiences' ----- just like God but less than.

COMMENT: This does not provide any helpful information. What is a "mass/ball of energy, intelligence and spirit?" What does that even mean? It is completely empty as an explanation.

____________________________________________

A soul is only 'temporarily' a mouse or a person ---- those have to be considered like a 'change of clothing' and when they wear out the soul, after returning to the 'between life', eventually gets a new 'change of clothing' or some do not continue to reincarnate.

COMMENT: Where is your evidence for such a claim? This strikes me, and I am sure others, as just ridiculous.

___________________________________________________

It's fine with me that you consider many of the things I have had 'experiences' with 'imaginary'. Please continue to "totally discount" the libraries full of books where people continue to write about many 'imaginary' things for whatever reason. Many more people experience these 'imaginary' things that never write books or publish their experiences.

COMMENTS: O.K. I agree that the reports of human experience are relevant--if a given report can be shown to be from a credible witness. Are there any credible reports that support your "temporary mouse" thesis; i.e. trans-species reincarnation?

I believe that the "soul-no vs. soul" issue is a genuine issue worthy of discussion. However, when the proposed pro-soul explanation renders the idea of a soul more suspect than it already appears to be, perhaps it should just be accepted on faith, without further comment.

Henry, have you not been reading my prior posts or not understanding them ----- I admit I am not that eloquent? This is the same stuff I have been expressing for at least a year now. Most people on this board 'know' what I will say and just hope to avoid me. Consider me a crazy exmo but I have had experiences in this stuff ----- because I sought answers. As far as what I can understand ----- who knows.

As far as your pertinent questions:
--------------------

COMMENT 1: This does not provide any helpful information. What is a "mass/ball of energy, intelligence and spirit?" What does that even mean? It is completely empty as an explanation.

Sorry, it does not explain everything it could, I get what I get, what I understand is 'more' than I did before. What I understand it to be is the 'soul (our eternal essence) with it's many life times of experience' is intelligent energy nothing more. Not subject to death but capable of gaining knowledge and experiences through 'reincarnation in physical things' as well as other teaching/learning methods.
---------------------------

A soul is only 'temporarily' a mouse or a person ---- those have to be considered like a 'change of clothing' and when they wear out the soul, after returning to the 'between life', eventually gets a new 'change of clothing' or some do not continue to reincarnate.

COMMENT 2: Where is your evidence for such a claim? This strikes me, and I am sure others, as just ridiculous.

Why does it strike you as 'ridiculous?' Please tell me what 'experiences' or 'evidence' that my explanation is not appropriate. I can ask exactly what you an Kolob ask as easy as you can!

We are 'eternal beings' we are not plants, animals, humans, aliens, etc. we are 'souls' that have reincarnated hundreds, maybe thousands of times and our eternal essence is described above. I have asked for and been shown portions of lifetimes where I was plants and animals. As far as others supporting 'reincarnation' --- Newtons, Journey of Souls. He does hypnosis on patients and goes into their past lives and the 'between life'. I am not sure he goes that far back to anyone not human but the concept is definitely there. If I had 'hard evidence' I would provide it.
-----------------------------------------

COMMENT 3: O.K. I agree that the reports of human experience are relevant--if a given report can be shown to be from a credible witness. Are there any credible reports that support your "temporary mouse" thesis; i.e. trans-species reincarnation?

Earth to Bemis, Come in please!

Sorry, but I think that is a 'delusional question'!

What or who is really 'credible' that either you or kolob would accept? We have to get real on this discussion of 'beliefs' based on 'experiences' or to some extent supported by hypnosis community, psychic community, etc.. I noted one book above from the 'hypnosis' community. I could also provide books from the 'psychic' community but are you going to accept their studies and analysis as 'credible'?

I have read a number of books, not nearly everything out there. None of what I have read would I expect someone wanting 'scientific evidence' to be satisfied with. As far as my experiences, I am more confident they would at least give you something to work with but they are mine ---- if I could give them to anyone I would.

My family heard some of my 'stories' and basically told me they were 'concerned' but were interested and asked me when I had new ones. Eventually, they started getting some similar ones. My sister claimed, at the time she had a premonition and awoke her husband who was clearly asleep and veering off the road going 80 mph, that I saved her life. Of course it wasn't me it was her spirit guide giving her the information and her 'recognizing' she got some key information.

It appears to me 'being open' to possibilities helps. I know many will say 'exactly' read about it then dream about it. However, many of my experiences are very unique. Anyone can dream but do those dreams prevent a verifiable potential accident at a specific location?

Hope the 'way I communicate' on this board doesn't completely piss you off. If it does I am sorry but this is the real me.

In my real life I would discuss things (normally things without a clear right answer) which others totally disagreed with me on but I will get them laughing so much they will think I am just joking with them (I was sort of the office standup comic) ----- those who really knew me knew I was serious. Obviously, I was serious at times when I needed to be when conducting business ---- not that I did not joke around a little even then.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2016 10:53PM by spiritist.

I think I lean toward your belief to some degree, but I have no experiences to support me. So for me, it's more of a possibility that I favor rather than a belief.

But I had just been thinking about the permanence of certain things. Like matter can not be created or destroyed and energy can not be created or destroyed. They can only change form. I thought MAYBE there was also spirit, which could not be created or destroyed. I have no evidence of that however.

So my thought is that when we die, our matter changes form, our electrical/heat energy dissipates into the atmosphere, and our spirit relocates into an available physical form here on this planet or elsewhere. So everything continues, just not necessarily as part of any big plan. But it does make me think that I want to make the most of this life, and also the lives of anyone else I can, because we only have ourselves to make it a good life.

Thanks for your comment ---- I don't get many positive ones but that is ok.

I wish I could help you get 'spirit experiences'--- one clue above is to read about some. There are many books and articles on the web. It appears many of my 'spirit experiences' involving past lives, scare Mormons/Christians ---- for good reason.

Other experiences involving seeing the future or getting help seems to be much more accepted and appreciated. My family doesn't totally believe me but they do recognize I have demonstrated some great 'mental abilities' at times, that have proven very helpful and have been right on even when told no you are wrong about that then OMG you are right.

I hate to say 'belief' is necessary because I don't believe I believed before I got many experiences but was definitely 'open to the possibility' of things like spirit communication, seeing the future/past, visions, dreams, meditative states, etc. etc.

I was not a 'scientist' professionally so I can't talk those terms. I say 'spirit' to represent a soul, which is primarily 'intelligent energy' with something (spirit) holding it together. I definitely believe based on my experiences that energy is not destroyed.

However, our souls can take many forms. That is why souls normally appear as humans to humans. This is especially true when someone crosses over and before they gain their 'full memory' again that souls appear to the newly arrived soul as the human the human knew in life to provide a calming effect. If they didn't the human would not recognize them.

However, in the after life/between life, souls normally appear to other souls as round balls of intelligent energy and they are known by their energy signature and also there is some color distinction (progress) as they have had hundreds of past lives.

Just because we live forever doesn't mean we should not live our current lives to the fullest extent possible.

Actually, if I could make up what I wanted to believe I don't think I would include reincarnation or a lot of the 'doctrine' I have been shown through my experiences ---- but I currently think like a human so who knows.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please continue to "totally discount" the
> libraries full of books where people continue to
> write about many 'imaginary' things for whatever
> reason. Many more people experience these
> 'imaginary' things that never write books or
> publish their experiences.

The plural of "unsupportable anecdote" is not "data."

The best definition of spirit, or soul, in my view is: energy - or a vibration of intelligence, at a minimum that does not cease to exist at the death of the body.

I just heard someone say that an atheist doesn't believe in an afterlife. I countered that one does not, necessarily, have anything to do with the other. Just because one does not believe in a deity does not mean they don't accept the possibility that there is some form of life that exists after the death of the physical body. One can reject all of the deities known to mankind and still have a belief in an afterlife of some sort. Or say, reincarnation. Neither requires a belief in a deity. It's religions that like to define that afterlife in a myriad of precise characteristics. And they do!

It's my view, at this point in my life, that energy, or vibration of intelligence (or whatever it is), is eternal, in some form.

Ultimately, it does not matter what we believe. It's likely that whatever happens will happen to everyone in the same manner regardless of religious claims or any belief system.

This 2014 survey indicated quite a few atheists/agnostics believe in an after life (32%). Amazing????

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/one-third-of-atheists-agnostics-believe-in-an-afterlife

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


Ahh... I knew there were some stats! I don't find it unusual at all that someone would not believe in a deity, or a personal one, but believe that there is some kind of life after death. One has nothing to do with the other.

LOVE hearing all of the experiences and have read the links with much interest. :-) Please do note however, I was sharing something written by someone else because I thought it was interesting. Just another opinion, not necessarily my own... I did not write it and thought I noted it in the beginning. :-) Peace!

his premise of chemical reactions stopping when we are dead is wrong:

""But scientists have revealed that our genes may continue to fizz with activity for days after death.
Evidence suggests that more than 1,000 genes are active post-mortem, some of which only grind into gear 24 hours after the event.""


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3654014/Is-life-death-1-000-genes-switch-animals-die-hundreds-active-days-after.html#ixzz4O1hOrdKf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

It would appear from the above that life actually inhibits certain chemical reactions that can only be performed post mortem.

To address the point regarding bacteria, most bacteria that are not eaten by a larger cellular life form or otherwise destroyed do not expire, but divide into two new daughter cells, ie, their 'life' or existence is continued by clones made from itself. Some bacteria are highly dangerous to humans in even small amounts but many bacteria dwell in and on us with no adverse effects, and even some of them which reside in our innards are vital to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

His argument is therefore moot and not worth considering. Good attempt at an argument, just a bit uninformed.

Yes, I am playing the 'ad hominem' card.

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> his premise of chemical reactions stopping when we
> are dead is wrong:
>
> ""But scientists have revealed that our genes may
> continue to fizz with activity for days after
> death.
> Evidence suggests that more than 1,000 genes are
> active post-mortem, some of which only grind into
> gear 24 hours after the event.""

No, actually, the premise is NOT "dead wrong."
The premise wasn't that all chemical reactions cease *immediately* upon death. Just that they cease. And they do -- some last a bit longer than some others is all.
The chemical reactions of "life" (metabolism, neural activity, nerve activity, etc.) do indeed cease when we die -- or shortly thereafter. That a few have enough resources to continue for a few days doesn't change that.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> No, actually, the premise is NOT "dead wrong."



I did not say 'dead wrong', I merely said 'wrong'.

The author claimed life was just chemical reactions and when the chemical reactions stop, life stops. He is misinformed as new studies show that some chemical reactions that would normally be described as pertaining to 'life', ie over 1,000 strands of dna becoming activated, actually happen after life has ceased, some reactions beginning over 24 hours after expiration of 'life'. This is nothing to do with cellular decomposition, but instead concerns cellular creation.

Please read things through correctly before misquoting, if you could. Thanks.

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I did not say 'dead wrong', I merely said 'wrong'.

Quote: "his premise of chemical reactions stopping when we are dead is wrong"

Yep, I "reversed" dead there. My bad.

> The author claimed life was just chemical
> reactions and when the chemical reactions stop,
> life stops. He is misinformed as new studies show
> that some chemical reactions that would normally
> be described as pertaining to 'life', ie over
> 1,000 strands of dna becoming activated, actually
> happen after life has ceased...

DNA being "activated" is not a life-sustaining chemical reaction. Such reactions are not metabolism or any other chemical reaction that keeps a living system alive.

> This is nothing to do with cellular
> decomposition, but instead concerns cellular
> creation.

Any new cells that are "created" (which is a poor choice of words anyway, since cells divide) die off very quickly. Nothing there is "life."

> Please read things through correctly before
> misquoting, if you could. Thanks.

I admitted I misread the place of one word.
The rest stands.

thank you for acknowledging you misread, it is easily done.

no cells are created to my knowledge, but studies show on a genetic level, dna that had been previously been inhibited by the presence of life/consciousness now spark into life up to 48 hours after expiry of 'normal' signs of life. Obviously more studies need to be done but science continues to surprise when it comes to 'things' trying to live/exist.

You have not disproven my opinion that the author's premise of life ceasing when chemical reactions stop is incorrect, as chemical reactions pertaining to life continue after expiry of vital organs and brain activity, ie the human 'signs of life'.


Never say never, as they say. Who knows what will be discovered next, but whatever it is I am sure we can agree that it will be fascinating.

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no cells are created to my knowledge, but studies
> show on a genetic level, dna that had been
> previously been inhibited by the presence of
> life/consciousness now spark into life up to 48
> hours after expiry of 'normal' signs of life.

DNA isn't "alive" ever, and can't "spark into life." DNA is a complex molecule that "life" uses as information storage. DNA isn't aware of either "consciousness" or "life," either. If the cell nuclei that contain DNA are getting oxygen and nutrients, they can function (whether in a living body or in a petri dish). If they aren't getting oxygen and nutrients, they can't function.

It wouldn't be at all surprising if when oxygen/nutrients cease to be delivered to cells, chemical reactions occur some hours later that use up the cell's last remaining resources to kick off changes to the DNA-containing nuclei in a last-ditch effort to remain viable. Unless the environment the cell is in, however, can deliver oxygen and nutrients, those last-ditch efforts will fail, and the cell will die. DNA, not being "alive," won't die -- the complex molecule that it is can remain intact for a very long time, under the right circumstances. What it can't do, though, is ever be "alive," or make new living things (or living cells). We can sometimes find remaining DNA molecules in the remains of once-living things tens to hundreds of thousands of years old, and read the information that was stored in the DNA molecule. But the "life" that contained that DNA, once dead, is gone for good.

> Obviously more studies need to be done but science
> continues to surprise when it comes to 'things'
> trying to live/exist.

No disagreement there.

> You have not disproven my opinion that the
> author's premise of life ceasing when chemical
> reactions stop is incorrect, as chemical reactions
> pertaining to life continue after expiry of vital
> organs and brain activity, ie the human 'signs of
> life'.

But...those "chemical reactions" you're talking about actually don't "pertain to life," and at any rate THEY cease as well. They just don't cease at the same time as some others -- but they do cease. You're kind of contradicting yourself. Think about it.

> Never say never, as they say. Who knows what will
> be discovered next, but whatever it is I am sure
> we can agree that it will be fascinating.

Yes, we can agree that it will be fascinating. :)

now you are just being silly in your effort to prove your being 'correct' in correcting my original statement that in my opinion the author is wrong as has been proven by new studies. I have not contradicted myself, nor have I 'kind of' contradicted myself.

chemical reactions that have previously been inhibited by the presence of consciousnessness come into being (dna ordering rna to collect and organise molecules to 'roll out' the dna: ie, an actual physiological process of 'life' according to textbooks) once consciousness has expired.

vis a vis the author is misguided/uninformed and you have not disproven my point, which still stands and is:

the cessation of chemical reactions does not equal the end of life/consciousness since chemical reactions previously initiated by and then inhibited by 'life/consciousness' have been found to be uninhibited by death, ie 'dna replicating' (that is, lengthening the dna strands) and some do not even begin until up to 48 hours after removal of the inhibitory factor of consciousness.

I will now go further and state:

Life cannot be explained away as merely chemical reactions since some chemical reactions pertaining to life do not begin until after demise. It would appear that you feel it important to convince me otherwise - why is that, I wonder. Is that your intent - to change my opinion, or is it your intent to 'feel' vindicated?

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> now you are just being silly in your effort to
> prove your being 'correct' in correcting my
> original statement that in my opinion the author
> is wrong as has been proven by new studies. I
> have not contradicted myself, nor have I 'kind of'
> contradicted myself.

I don't consider being factual and accurate silly.

> chemical reactions that have previously been
> inhibited by the presence of consciousnessness
> come into being (dna ordering rna to collect and
> organise molecules to 'roll out' the dna: ie, an
> actual physiological process of 'life' according
> to textbooks) once consciousness has expired.

That is factually incorrect. DNA has no knowledge of "consciousness" existing or not existing, working or not working, and none of the chemical reactions involved depend on "consciousness" in any way. Put the same cells containing DNA in a petri dish, without any "consciousness," and provide them oxygen and nutrients, and these chemical reactions won't occur. Cut off their oxygen and nutrients in the same petri dish, and they will. "Consciousness" isn't involved in any way.

> the cessation of chemical reactions does not equal
> the end of life/consciousness since chemical
> reactions previously initiated by and then
> inhibited by 'life/consciousness' have been found
> to be uninhibited by death, ie 'dna replicating'
> (that is, lengthening the dna strands) and some do
> not even begin until up to 48 hours after removal
> of the inhibitory factor of consciousness.

Again, factually incorrect, since "consciousness" or the lack thereof is not involved in any way.



> I will now go further and state:
>
> Life cannot be explained away as merely chemical
> reactions since some chemical reactions pertaining
> to life do not begin until after demise.

If these "chemical reactions" pertain to life, they would occur in a living body. Since they DON'T occur in a living body, they don't "pertain to life." That's the self-contradiction I was talking about.

> It would
> appear that you feel it important to convince me
> otherwise - why is that, I wonder. Is that your
> intent - to change my opinion, or is it your
> intent to 'feel' vindicated?

My intention is to be factual. You can have whatever opinion you want, I don't care. Your claims aren't factual -- I'm simply pointing that out.

I should also point out that the article you referred to, being a "popular" article, does a poor job of reporting on the science, including using words to describe processes that the science itself doesn't use. It does, however, point out one thing you seem to have completely ignored: that chemical process you mention appears to have been observed in some animals, but never in humans. So for you to claim it occurs in humans is unsupported by evidence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2016 01:18PM by ificouldhietokolob.

face-palm


I have used nothing but facts - please read the article and any supporting articles you find for yourself to check out the first article - this is what people educated in the british system do, I assumed they did the same in the US. You are doing what you regularly accuse others of - resorting to 'ad-homenim attack' by picking faults with the information source when you cannot win your argument with pure logic. You have done it to me many times before and I am not taking your bait. As you are well aware, the daily mail is not a science journal, it is a newspaper that tries to explain articles from science journals to it's readers. There are scientific journal articles online if you bother to look for them.

you are not going to change my opinion with name-calling. please desist from trying to call me out when in fact you cannot state categorically that I am wrong in believing the author of the OP to be incorrect that the end of chemical reactions equals the end of life.

NOTHING you can say - nothing regarding the statement, nor the source of information, can change my opinion that this statement is correct.

Please accept the fact that I do not agree with you in this instance, nor do I consider your point proven. This is commonly referred to as a 'difference of opinion' and IRL can occur without either party resorting to name calling or ad homenims, or introduction of new arguments to replace the one that cannot be discredited.

All future messages regarding this subject will be considered trolling and will be reported accordingly.

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
You are
> doing what you regularly accuse others of -
> resorting to 'ad-homenim attack' by picking
> faults with the information source when you cannot
> win your argument with pure logic.
> you are not going to change my opinion with
> name-calling.

Never once did I call you any names or use any ad-hominem arguments. I pointed out errors of fact only.
For you to claim otherwise is dishonest, and can be shown false by the posts above.

I like that we are able to shop around for the Truth that most appeals to whatever stage of life we happen to be at.

And now with Los Interwebz, it's easy to find proof that what you want to be true, is true!

Thank you for sharing this 'food for thought'.

Again, thank you everyone... I love all the links y'all have provided and am enjoying the information. Although I lurked on this board for many months, I just recently joined and posted my story as an "investigator", and am enjoying it so much. :-)

Through the years, I have only joined one other internet board, and am delighted to have joined this one. Already, it has been my honor to find some of the most interesting and diverse folks with an endless amount of diversity and backgrounds. The discussions here are some of the best I have ever seen... thank you for having me... it is most appreciated! Love and peace! :-)

Although you raise well-established points, what you and others require in order to complete your argument is an explanation in scientific terms of phenomena that are not susceptible to your bio-chemical analysis; most notably consciousness. It is evident that humans, and other animals, are conscience. Yet, there is no scientific explanation as to how or why bio-chemical brain process should produce consciousness. As far as science is concerned, consciousness appears out of nowhere, like magic. In fact, we know that mind exists, but have no idea what it is. In addition, there is a wealth of paranormal phenomena, given through credible reports, that human beings (at least) are more than what can be explained by physical processes, as currently known. Although, this area is controversial, I have never personally seen any type of materialist explanation that remotely addresses the scope of this type of phenomena.

It is these considerations, coupled with religious dogma, that drive the continued belief in a soul.

____________________________________________

"It is when you think about the chemical reactions powering your life and your brain that you realize how completely imaginary your "soul" truly is. And at that point, everything about religion comes unraveled."

COMMENT: Not so. This only works if your unstated premise is true, namely that chemical reactions are shown to completely explain everything that is known about human beings. Not even psychologists and neuroscientists would make that claim, particularly as it relates to consciousness and freewill.

______________________________________________

Think back to when you were a kid and you realized that Santa was imaginary. As soon as you knew it, it was obvious. Reindeer cannot fly. A man cannot slide down chimneys. There is no way for one little sleigh to carry all the toys for all the kids in the world. Etc. It is obvious that Santa is make believe.

COMMENT: Yes. Not only were there impossible inferences based upon physical laws, there was nothing about the myth of Santa Claus that could not be explained by social traditions. In the case of the soul, again, there is much that is left unexplained by the standard scientific response.
________________________________________________

In the same way, it is obvious that human beings are big, walking chemical reactions (see this article for a description of how the reactions work). Your "soul" is make believe just like Santa. When the chemical reactions cease, you die. That is the end of it.

COMMENT: But this is not obvious at all. "Big chemical reactions" do not--under any scientific principle or law--produce subjective consciousness, human agents, or freewill. Thus, your premise is patently false.
________________________________________________

Knowing this, you can see that everything about religion is imaginary. God, the Bible, Jesus, the resurrection, prayer, the Ten Commandments, the creation story, your soul, everlasting life, heaven... every bit of it is the product of human imagination. The same goes for Allah, the Koran and so on. As a species we have believed all of this religious dogma for centuries, and most of us believe it today to some degree. And yet... it is all fiction. Today's "God" is just as fictional as were the gods of the Egyptians, the Romans and the Aztecs.

COMMENT: Well, I will not disagree that much of religion is based upon imaginative fiction. But that claim does not follow at all from anything else you have said.

A couple of quick observations.

First, it is true that we cannot connect all human characteristics--consciousness, if you will--to chemical reactions. But we can gain insight by going the opposite direction. If you kill a person, the chemical reactions enter a process of decline and eventual cessation. This is true even if some processes don't start until after death, which is a point about which I know nothing. Thus you can use chemistry and physics to eliminate consciousness or at least to drive it from this realm of existence.

Short of murder, if you hit a person in the head or shut off the blood supply for a significant amount of time, you alter her consciousness. If you change her brain chemistry through drugs or poison, you alter her perception of reality and can even shut down her consciousness temporarily or permanently. If her brain malfunctions due to a genetic disease like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, her consciousness is again affected; and in many cases her perception of reality diverges from what the rest of us, in our collective consciousness, think is correct.

All of which suggests that consciousness is highly dependent on neurochemical reactions. Unless one can explain why consciousness would arise independently but then arbitrarily become dependent for its continuance on certain chemical and physical conditions, you'll have to forgive those of us who follow Occam and reckon it a better bet that the purported independence is illusory.

Second, there are elements of your argument that are, forgive me again, faith-based. You keep saying, for instance, that humans have free agency. That is a religious tenet and a widely accepted belief, but it is by no means a proven fact. To prove that proposition, you would need to unravel all the chemical and physical processes of life and of the universe and show that there was a portion of human action that violated demonstrated physical laws. It may well be, however, that mapping all material processes would reveal that people's actions are indeed explicable in mechanistic terms; in short, that there is no free will.

Now that may be wrong, but the question of free will is an empirical question. Ultimately it cannot be answered without data-based analysis. Since we are far from having enough information to test the proposition, some skepticism is in order on both sides. The same is of course true of "consciousness." Nor can one say, again, whether consciousness is independent of material processes until one has fully mapped out those processes.

And as Nietzsche observed, and all of us refugees from Mormon epistemology believe to one degree or another, just because something feels good or right does not make it true. The thought that we do not enjoy free agency may be unnerving, but it may also be correct.

Sorry for the extraneous sentence in the penultimate paragraph. The argument is clearer without that "The same is of course true of "consciousness."

Lot must be a very busy person. ;)

"All of which suggests that consciousness is highly dependent on neurochemical reactions. Unless one can explain why consciousness would arise independently but then arbitrarily become dependent for its continuance on certain chemical and physical conditions, you'll have to forgive those of us who follow Occam and reckon it a better bet that the purported independence is illusory."

COMMENT: I do not disagree with this. However, my point is that anomalies to such a thesis need to be explained. Remember a single anomaly disproves a theory. So, if you have ANY credible evidence, including reports of human experience, that undermine the above materialist thesis, such evidence needs to be explained if the theory is to remain intact. So far, the explanations have been to undermine such reports per se as non-credible-simply because they go against what otherwise seems obvious, i.e. mind-brain dependency, and not because of any substantive study that addresses the credibility of such reports on a case by case basis.
________________________________________

"Second, there are elements of your argument that are, forgive me again, faith-based. You keep saying, for instance, that humans have free agency. That is a religious tenet and a widely accepted belief, but it is by no means a proven fact. To prove that proposition, you would need to unravel all the chemical and physical processes of life and of the universe and show that there was a portion of human action that violated demonstrated physical laws. It may well be, however, that mapping all material processes would reveal that people's actions are indeed explicable in mechanistic terms; in short, that there is no free will."

COMMENT: Well, don't we all have "faith" in freewill? Are you denying that you do not live your life with the constant assumption that your day to day actions are the result of volitions? So, if you object to "faith," here, it is a very widespread "religious" tenet indeed; I dare say, including your own!

Second, all we need to demonstrate free will, or at least provide evidence for it, is to show that mental effort can affect physical processes. Specifically, that mental effort, for example the act of meditation, or other mental exercise, can cause a change in physical brain states. This has been demonstrated in a variety of contexts. In short, the notion of the causal closure of the physical is demonstrably false. Again, these findings represent anomalies to the materialist thesis, suggesting that the thesis is false in some respect.
_____________________________________

"Now that may be wrong, but the question of free will is an empirical question. Ultimately it cannot be answered without data-based analysis. Since we are far from having enough information to test the proposition, some skepticism is in order on both sides. The same is of course true of "consciousness." Nor can one say, again, whether consciousness is independent of material processes until one has fully mapped out those processes."

COMMENT: Well, I disagree with your insistence on "data based analysis," for consciousness and freewill, if by that you intend to exclude human reports of subjective human experiences. After all, consciousness and freewill by their very nature are subjective, and NOT ultimately driven by the data of physical processes. That is not to suggest, of course, that physical data is irrelevant. What is inappropriate, to my mind, is skepticism of freewill and consciousness simply because they are not neatly explainable as part of a deterministic physical worldview. There is no reason to be skeptical about the existence of consciousness, which existence is intuitively obvious, simply because its existence is not data driven in a scientific sense. That would be ludicrous, because science itself depends upon conscious human beings making what appear to be conscious (and volitional) inferences about the nature of the physical world.

Again, you are not being logical.

You claim that consciousness is independent of neurochemical processes. That is YOUR claim, your theory. I point out that your proposition cannot explain why brain trauma and brain chemistry affect consciousness, which is what we all see on a frequent basis. You reply that I must explain the exceptions to my rule if my rule is to be validated. But I never established a rule. I pointed out exceptions to YOUR rule, YOUR thesis. It is up to You to explain how the exceptions I describe don't violate your system of beliefs.

Again, I do not claim that consciousness is the result of physical processes but rather that it may be and that there is plausible evidence to that effect, evidence that you need to account for in making your prior and absolute claim that consciousness and free will are independent.

Second, you assert that I live my life in a way that proves that I believe in free will, that I act on the basis of that belief. That is not logically rigorous. I do NOT live my life on the basis of belief that I am consciously altering my life trajectory for the simple reason that I do not know that to be true. I make choices that I think correct knowing all the while that they may ultimately be the result of processes beyond my understanding and which I do not control. In addition, even if I did have the faith in free agency that you ascribe to me, that would not make my faith factually accurate. Your faith, my faith, humanity's faith don't make something true.

Third, I say that ultimately the question whether we have free will should be empirically testable--meaning that given enough scientific knowledge and processing capacity, we should be able to prove whether or not humans can change the course of personal or group behavior and history. You respond that "consciousness and freewill by their very nature are subjective, and NOT ultimately driven by the data of physical processes." You cannot prove that assertion; it is a statement of faith.

Finally, I argue that skepticism is appropriate regarding free will and consciousness because we do not fully understand them. You reject my proposition; you write that we should accept them precisely BECAUSE we don't understand them. In your words, "freewill and consciousness [are real and independent of materialistic processes] because they are not neatly explainable as part of a deterministic physical worldview." That is bad reasoning. There were times when humanity thought disease was caused by evil spirits, that the earth was flat, that the universe revolved around the earth. People lacked the scientific means to test and disprove these misconceptions. By your standard, their beliefs were accurate. The universe did revolve around the sun because the alternative solution was "not neatly explainable as part of a deterministic physical worldview." You thus make "truth" dependent on the state of human scientific knowledge at a given point in time, which is of course nonsense.

Henry, you have some things backwards. When you assert a general principle like the existence of free will and the independence of consciousness, it is you who have to explain the evident violations of those propositions. I don't have a theory on these points; I simply see enough exceptions to your rule to point out that its inadequacy. Meanwhile it is obscurantist to say that something is true because we don't presently have the scientific ability to disprove it.

"You claim that consciousness is independent of neurochemical processes. That is YOUR claim, your theory. I point out that your proposition cannot explain why brain trauma and brain chemistry affect consciousness, which is what we all see on a frequent basis. You reply that I must explain the exceptions to my rule if my rule is to be validated. But I never established a rule. I pointed out exceptions to YOUR rule, YOUR thesis. It is up to You to explain how the exceptions I describe don't violate your system of beliefs."

COMMENT: I have made no such claim. I was merely responding to the OP, who suggested that the issue had been resolved. I fully admit that a theory that proposes that consciousness is completely independent of brain processes, and thus there could be a soul, has a lot of explaining to do, which so far it cannot.

Regarding your "rule," I was only stating that any theory that claims that consciousness can be explained solely from brain processes has to address the anomalies that suggest otherwise, including in particular the evidence for mental causation. If you don't make that claim, then you have no burden in this regard. In short, any person that proposes a theory, one way or the other, must explain the phenomena that falsifies such a theory, or otherwise modify their theory. Again, I do not have a theory in this debate. I think it is a difficult issue, and perhaps intractable.

____________________________________

"Again, I do not claim that consciousness is the result of physical processes but rather that it may be and that there is plausible evidence to that effect, evidence that you need to account for in making your prior and absolute claim that consciousness and free will are independent."

COMMENT: Again, I agree with you, and that is precisely why I have never made any such claim. In fact, to claim that consciousness and freewill are entirely independent of brain function strikes me as empirically ludicrous. But, it is also ludicrous, at least for me, to suggest that there is no causal efficacy between mind and matter; i.e. that I cannot control my actions by my mental processes; and therefore my brain by my thoughts. For me, nothing could be more obvious.

_______________________________________________

"Second, you assert that I live my life in a way that proves that I believe in free will, that I act on the basis of that belief. That is not logically rigorous. I do NOT live my life on the basis of belief that I am consciously altering my life trajectory for the simple reason that I do not know that to be true."

COMMENT: Now, that is nonsense. You do not live your life on the assumption that your conscious decisions affect your life trajectory" and that of others. In fact, you do, whether it is a conscious belief or not. You could not do otherwise. As an example, did you leave Mormonism? Was that a decision you made? Did that decision affect others? Come on. Let's be real here.
__________________________________________________

"I make choices that I think correct knowing all the while that they may ultimately be the result of processes beyond my understanding and which I do not control. In addition, even if I did have the faith in free agency that you ascribe to me, that would not make my faith factually accurate. Your faith, my faith, humanity's faith don't make something true.

COMMENT: All I said was it that you live your daily life fully and completely based upon an assumption that freewill is real and genuine. I understand that your intellectual side reminds you that you may be wrong, as does mine. But, this does not undermine the "faith" aspect of everyday decision-making. Remember, it was you that accused me of faith, as if it were some sort of liability.
______________________________________

"Third, I say that ultimately the question whether we have free will should be empirically testable--meaning that given enough scientific knowledge and processing capacity, we should be able to prove whether or not humans can change the course of personal or group behavior and history. You respond that "consciousness and freewill by their very nature are subjective, and NOT ultimately driven by the data of physical processes." You cannot prove that assertion; it is a statement of faith."

COMMENT: I cannot prove that consciousness is subjective? What kind of proof are you talking about? What kind of "data" are you looking for to "prove" that we are conscious human agents. If you are looking for neurological proof, you are looking in the wrong place, because there is nothing about physical brain processes that suggest in any way the existence of mind or consciousness; correlations between some physical states and some experiential states, yes. But correlations are not either ontological or causal explanations.
________________________________________

"Finally, I argue that skepticism is appropriate regarding free will and consciousness because we do not fully understand them. You reject my proposition; you write that we should accept them precisely BECAUSE we don't understand them."

COMMENT: Why do you keep putting words in my mouth. Skepticism about freewill is manifestly NOT appropriate, when your everyday life depends upon an assumption of the exact opposite. I do NOT say that we should accept them because we don't understand them. We should accept them precisely because we DO understand them; we understand what is essential about being human agents with real lives, real accountability; real concern for our loved ones and their choices, etc. etc. Of course, we don't understand everything about consciousness and freewill, but we understand (1) that we are consciousness; and (2) if we hope to have any kind of a rational worldview, we need to accept freewill. There is no rational justification for denial of freewill. The very denial of freewill implies a conscious, free decision-maker.
______________________________________

"In your words, "freewill and consciousness [are real and independent of materialistic processes] because they are not neatly explainable as part of a deterministic physical worldview." That is bad reasoning."

COMMENT: That is not what I said, AGAIN! There is evidence for freewill (as I pointed out), and there is evidence against freewill (as you and OP have pointed out). There is a paradox here. But neither side should adopt limiting theories that jump to conclusions based upon a necessity of ignoring the evidence of the other side; particularly when such evidence falsifies such a theory.
_________________________________________

"There were times when humanity thought disease was caused by evil spirits, that the earth was flat, that the universe revolved around the earth. People lacked the scientific means to test and disprove these misconceptions. By your standard, their beliefs were accurate."

COMMENT: Oh please, tell me when I ever said such nonsense. People believed such things, and now we know that they were wrong. It is as simple as that.
_____________________________________

The universe did revolve around the sun because the alternative solution was "not neatly explainable as part of a deterministic physical worldview." You thus make "truth" dependent on the state of human scientific knowledge at a given point in time, which is of course nonsense.

COMMENT: But that is exactly what you and OP are doing, not me! You are claiming that the truth of consciousness and freewill must be assessed by the current state of materialist science, independent of human experience. I am the one that is leaving the question open, and pointing out that there are reasons, including subjective human experience, to keep the question open.
_______________________________________

"Henry, you have some things backwards. When you assert a general principle like the existence of free will and the independence of consciousness, it is you who have to explain the evident violations of those propositions. I don't have a theory on these points; I simply see enough exceptions to your rule to point out that its inadequacy. Meanwhile it is obscurantist to say that something is true because we don't presently have the scientific ability to disprove it.

COMMENT: I don't have a theory either. As such, neither one of us has a burden of proof. However, I at least have an understanding of the evidence on both sides of the issue. You, on the other hand, must repeatedly misrepresent my clear statements in order to justify your skepticism. Why?

I am surprised by this post.

First, you start by saying that on the biggest points we agree. That begs the question why you took issue with my post in the first place.

Second, I am not misrepresenting your points or putting words in your mouth when I quote you, as I did a couple of times. It is silly to reproduce my quotation of you and then in the next sentence to say that I was putting words into your mouth.

Third, I'll try again to explain why your statement that consciousness is subjective may be wrong. Consciousness would be subjective if it were independent of all natural forces. Since we do not understand all natural forces, we cannot conclude that consciousness is subjective or that free will in fact exists.

Fourth, when you say that our inability at the present time to map out those forces means that we must accept that those forces don't explain consciousness is the very definition of obscurantism. You admit as much when you say that people acted on the basis of mistaken beliefs about the place of earth in the universe and then corrected their beliefs when science progressed. That is correct history and epistemology; it is also precisely the opposite of what you are doing when you say that consciousness is subjective because today's level of science does not explain the phenomenon. That is a false statement no matter how you interpret it. Your argument is false either in part false because science is progressing and casting new light on the contribution of physical processes on consciousness--thereby gradually narrowing the scope of possible subjective free agency--or in whole because science may one day explain consciousness.

Finally, you claim it is "nonsense" of me to say I do not have faith in free will because I act on it all the time. That is again sloppy reasoning. If I am the product of material forces, then those forces would dictate my choices as well as dictating that I am aware of the fact that those choices may be predetermined. In short, the sense of subjectivity--the confidence that I am making my own choices--may itself be the result of chemical and physical processes. The fact that you, conversely, are absolutely certain that you are making your own decisions is beside the point. No matter how strongly felt, emotional conviction is not a measure of truth.

"Second, I am not misrepresenting your points or putting words in your mouth when I quote you, as I did a couple of times. It is silly to reproduce my quotation of you and then in the next sentence to say that I was putting words into your mouth."

COMMENT: I expect quotations around entire quoted statements, with fair context, not just a word or two here and there, with your added mischaracterization of the point made. That is standard practice.
_____________________________________

"Third, I'll try again to explain why your statement that consciousness is subjective may be wrong. Consciousness would be subjective if it were independent of all natural forces. Since we do not understand all natural forces, we cannot conclude that consciousness is subjective or that free will in fact exists."

COMMENT: You apparently do not know what the word "subjective" means in science. It does NOT mean "independent of all natural forces." Consciousness might well be "explained" in part by some theory involving natural, but unknown, forces. What "subjective" means, however, is that it (consciousness) is essentially a product of human experience. Even if it turned out to be a natural phenomenon (which, by the way, I assume it is, because for me there is no such thing as 'supernatural' existence), that would not take away from its subjective character, any more than water in liquid form takes away from its character as a molecular structure. _________________________________

"Fourth, when you say that our inability at the present time to map out those forces means that we must accept that those forces don't explain consciousness is the very definition of obscurantism."

COMMENT: Again, NO! Your suggestion involves an assumption; namely that there is an unknown force that explains, or will explain, consciousness. That assumption may be true, but to question it; for good reason, is NOT obscurantism, let alone "the very definition of obscurantism." After all, "forces" alone cannot explain the mental function associated with consciousness, any more than kinetic energy, and the forces associated with it, can explain the mechanics of an automobile.
_________________________________

"You admit as much when you say that people acted on the basis of mistaken beliefs about the place of earth in the universe and then corrected their beliefs when science progressed. That is correct history and epistemology; it is also precisely the opposite of what you are doing when you say that consciousness is subjective because today's level of science does not explain the phenomenon. That is a false statement no matter how you interpret it. Your argument is false either in part false because science is progressing and casting new light on the contribution of physical processes on consciousness--thereby gradually narrowing the scope of possible subjective free agency--or in whole because science may one day explain consciousness.

COMMENT: This is ridiculous. Consciousness is subjective. Period. That is just what it is. It is the nature of the beast; whether science ever one day understands it or not. Moreover, your statement about the "progress of science" in understanding consciousness is either false or highly misleading. Science has indeed progressed remarkably in understanding correlations between the brain and mental function, which as I have stated, undermines any thesis that consciousness is independent of the brain. But that does not explain in any way what consciousness is, ontologically, or how or why it arises out of physical brain states or processes. No progress has been made in this regard. And this not about subjectivity! Even if science were to answer such questions, consciousness, and the mental life associated with it, would still be a subjective, human experience.
_____________________________________

"Finally, you claim it is "nonsense" of me to say I do not have faith in free will because I act on it all the time. That is again sloppy reasoning. If I am the product of material forces, then those forces would dictate my choices as well as dictating that I am aware of the fact that those choices may be predetermined. In short, the sense of subjectivity--the confidence that I am making my own choices--may itself be the result of chemical and physical processes."

COMMENT: Correct, your "choices" may be just deterministic chemical processes. But if they are, they are by definition not choices, since "choices" implies real alternative actions, which implies freewill. The "choices" then become illusory, i.e. not choices at all. Now, if you believe that your choices are illusory, why do you act every day as if they matter; i.e. they are not illusory. That is inconsistent and irrational! You believe on the one hand that your choices matter, and act accordingly; but on the other hand believe they are illusory. That is called inconsistent beliefs, ergo irrationality.
________________________________________

"The fact that you, conversely, are absolutely certain that you are making your own decisions is beside the point. No matter how strongly felt, emotional conviction is not a measure of truth."

COMMENT: Please provide a quote from me where I said, "I am absolutely certain that I make free choices, or have genuine free will," or words to that effect. You continue to read into my statements what you want to hear in order to justify your skepticism. Indeed, emotional conviction is not a reliable measure of truth. However, I choose to have consistent beliefs; I choose to believe that I have freewill and that my decisions matter. I may be wrong, but at least I am consistent. Your position, as articulated here, is manifestly inconsistent, as I have clearly shown.

We are verging on argument for argument's sake.

1) You needn't tell me the rules for quoting or citing other people; I am familiar with them. You may expect "quotations around entire quoted statements," which of course I gave you. You expect "fair context," which is available in your original posts. It is when you implicitly ask me to change your original context to bring your statements into accord with my contentions, which is what you did in your last post, that I won't accede. You are responsible for knowing what your positions are and for expressing them accurately in writing.

2) You don't like my use of the word "subjective;" you say that in scientific analysis that word means the "product of human experience." You are missing the point that human experience is inextricably linked to natural processes. When a kid is hit by his parent, it makes a mark through chemical processes in the kid's brain and influences his future. Every human experience is like that. It registers its effect on the subject through natural processes that then influence future behavior and events. Subjectivity in your sense means that everyone experiences life differently and that that shapes their consciousness and cognition. But that is what I have been arguing all along: that our disparate consciousnesses may be the result of natural processes stemming from our individual experiences. There is no contradiction between the subjective and scientific processes.

3) Then you double down on my position. You say that you "assume" that consciousness is a "natural phenomenon" because you don't believe in a "'supernatural' existence." If that is what you believe, then why are you fighting against my proposition of precisely that point?

3) In your next comment you opine that I claim "there is an unknown force that explains, or will explain, consciousness." I do not. I don't know if science requires another force to explain consciousness or if we just need more data and analysis using the forces already understood. I will, however, indicate that you are contradicting yourself again. You just said that you "assume" that consciousness is a "natural phenomenon," which implies that you think it is produced by natural forces.

4) Then, curiously, you revert to your original position that "'forces" alone cannot explain the mental function associated with consciousness." Which is it? Is consciousness a natural phenomenon or not? Is it the result of natural processes or not?

5) You conclude that "consciousness is subjective. Period. That is just what it is. It is the nature of the beast; whether science ever one day understands it or not." That is again a declaration of faith, not a rational argument. The truth is that there is no distinction between subjective events and natural processes. You have already acknowledged that much by writing that you think consciousness is a "natural" rather than a "supernatural" phenomenon. For natural processes subsume individual experience.

6) Your final sentences are both more perplexing and more emotional. You state that "no progress has been made" regarding how consciousness "arises out of physical brain states or processes?" Really? Science has in fact identified what parts of the brain produce what sorts of emotions and what sorts of thought. Science understands the chemistry underlying consciousness as well. To describe that as "no progress" is curious.

The same is true of your final plea that "even if science were to answer" the big questions about "consciousness, and the mental life associated with it, [it] would still be a subjective, human experience." That is either tautological or incorrect. It is tautological if you mean that human experience is what humans have, an argument that would be equally true of cattle and bovine experience. Your statement is incorrect, on the other hand, if you are contending that there is something that natural forces cannot explain, for that does put us in the realm of the supernatural.

Bottom line: my position has been, from start to finish, that individual human experience is produced by natural processes and registers in the individual through such processes. The changes in the human then influence his actions and beliefs through the same processes. You have both accepted this proposition and rejected it multiple times.

1) You needn't tell me the rules for quoting or citing other people; I am familiar with them. You may expect "quotations around entire quoted statements," which of course I gave you. You expect "fair context," which is available in your original posts. It is when you implicitly ask me to change your original context to bring your statements into accord with my contentions, which is what you did in your last post, that I won't accede. You are responsible for knowing what your positions are and for expressing them accurately in writing.

COMMENT: Apparently, I do, since you cannot provide me with a single example of your quoting a complete statement of mine in context that supports what you then attribute to me.
_______________________________________

2) You don't like my use of the word "subjective;" you say that in scientific analysis that word means the "product of human experience." You are missing the point that human experience is inextricably linked to natural processes.

COMMENT: No, *you* are missing the point. By "human experience" I am obviously not talking about physical effects, I am talking about mental experience; i.e. what such an experience feels like to the person having that experience. For example, pain is a mental experience, which is quite different from the chemical and molecular processes that produced such a result. "Pain" is subjectively felt, i.e. experienced. Chemical processes, however causally related to the result of pain, are not of themselves "pain." The chemical processes of the brain that occur when I see my mother, are not the same as my experience of my mother, visual or otherwise. As such, they are not identical. One (pain) is mental; the other (deterministic chemical processes) are physical. This is all quite basic, really.
______________________________________

When a kid is hit by his parent, it makes a mark through chemical processes in the kid's brain and influences his future. Every human experience is like that. It registers its effect on the subject through natural processes that then influence future behavior and events. Subjectivity in your sense means that everyone experiences life differently and that that shapes their consciousness and cognition. But that is what I have been arguing all along: that our disparate consciousnesses may be the result of natural processes stemming from our individual experiences. There is no contradiction between the subjective and scientific processes.

COMMENT: You do not understand the word "subjective." In the context of this discussion, it doesn't have anything to do with "our disparate consciousness." What it has to do with is consciousness itself! Consciousness itself is mental experience, not physical processes. I did not say there was a contradiction between the subjective (consciousness) and scientific processes. What I said was, or meant to say, is that they are not the same thing.
__________________________________________

3) Then you double down on my position. You say that you "assume" that consciousness is a "natural phenomenon" because you don't believe in a "'supernatural' existence." If that is what you believe, then why are you fighting against my proposition of precisely that point?

COMMENT: Because, again, it shows you are missing the point. One can believe, as I do, that everything that exists in the world--whether known or unknown, understood, or not understood--is the product of some natural process. That would include consciousness and mind. But that fact does not change the fact that consciousness, mind, and freewill, are not fully explained by the deterministic processes of classical physics (which is what neuroscience is essentially based upon). Mind and the mental, including consciousness and freewill, require some other type of natural explanation. Such an explanation will undoubtedly encompass its subjective character, i.e. how experience feels, or its qualia.
_________________________________

3) In your next comment you opine that I claim "there is an unknown force that explains, or will explain, consciousness." I do not. I don't know if science requires another force to explain consciousness or if we just need more data and analysis using the forces already understood. I will, however, indicate that you are contradicting yourself again. You just said that you "assume" that consciousness is a "natural phenomenon," which implies that you think it is produced by natural forces.

COMMENT: What I mean by "natural" in the term "natural phenomena" is that there is in principle some explanation such that if we were not ignorant of that explanation, or if we had broader powers of cognition or comprehension, we could understand it. This might encompass additional natural "forces" of some kind, maybe currently unknown, or poorly understood. So, I assume we are on the same page here.
___________________________________

4) Then, curiously, you revert to your original position that "'forces" alone cannot explain the mental function associated with consciousness." Which is it? Is consciousness a natural phenomenon or not? Is it the result of natural processes or not?

COMMENT: "Forces" are only one aspect of natural phenomena, as currently understood, and there are only four known fundamental forces, none of which are currently identified with consciousness. But, more importantly, forces of themselves do not explain how either physical systems or mental systems carry and process information. A computer, for example, encompasses entirely known and understood electromagnetic forces. But the data and processing of a computer requires more; it requires organized transfer of electrical signals through algorithmic software instructions. The brain is also a physical system that requires more than mere forces for the same reason. If mind is also a cognitive system that processes information, it too needs more than mere natural forces.
________________________________

5) You conclude that "consciousness is subjective. Period. That is just what it is. It is the nature of the beast; whether science ever one day understands it or not." That is again a declaration of faith, not a rational argument. The truth is that there is no distinction between subjective events and natural processes. You have already acknowledged that much by writing that you think consciousness is a "natural" rather than a "supernatural" phenomenon. For natural processes subsume individual experience.

COMMENT: No it is not a declaration of faith. It is an empirical fact of human experience. Consciousness is not some physical thing that can be quantified through known physical laws. It is fundamentally associated with how human beings and other animals experience the world. The suggestion that "there is no distinction between subjective events and natural processes" is ludicrous. Is there a distinction, for example, between the brain processes that invoke the thought of your child during a proud moment, and what you actually are feeling and experiencing during that moment? One thing is identified with physical brain processes; the other, human feeling and emotion. This is true, even if, as you say, natural processes "subsume" individual experience in some sense. The point is that they are not identical; there is no identity relation between the two because the properties of one are not identical to the properties of the other.
____________________________________

6) Your final sentences are both more perplexing and more emotional. You state that "no progress has been made" regarding how consciousness "arises out of physical brain states or processes?" Really? Science has in fact identified what parts of the brain produce what sorts of emotions and what sorts of thought. Science understands the chemistry underlying consciousness as well. To describe that as "no progress" is curious.

COMMENT: Emotional? As I said, science has progressed tremendously in establishing correlations between physical brain processes and mental experience. But what they have not been able to do is explain how and why physical processes generate subjective personal experience; feelings and qualia. This is not disputed, by the way, even by neuroscientists. That consciousness is a "mystery" is acknowledged by scientists all the time, with few exceptions.
______________________________

The same is true of your final plea that "even if science were to answer" the big questions about "consciousness, and the mental life associated with it, [it] would still be a subjective, human experience." That is either tautological or incorrect. It is tautological if you mean that human experience is what humans have, an argument that would be equally true of cattle and bovine experience. Your statement is incorrect, on the other hand, if you are contending that there is something that natural forces cannot explain, for that does put us in the realm of the supernatural.

COMMENT: Nonsense. It is neither. Even if science understood how and why physical brain processes produce consciousness, the fact would remain that consciousness is subjective; it would still constitute human experience as individually felt and experienced. (And nothing changes when considering animals, I restricted my comments to humans for convenience.) Secondly, again, there is something that natural "forces" cannot explain (see comments above). However, if and when science understands consciousness, or if it never does, consciousness is not the result of waiving a magic wand, it is the result of some process that is not understood. And, by the way, that understanding might encompass a soul of some sort, for all we know.
_________________________________

Bottom line: my position has been, from start to finish, that individual human experience is produced by natural processes and registers in the individual through such processes. The changes in the human then influence his actions and beliefs through the same processes. You have both accepted this proposition and rejected it multiple times.

COMMENT: As stated here, I completely accept it. However, I would point out two things: (1) that the natural processes that produce consciousness are not currently known, and may encompass much that is not currently understood at all, even in principle; and (2) subjective, intuitive evidence, as well as empirical data, support the conclusion that human experience encompasses genuine free will and mental causation. Presumably this can also be explained by a natural ontology and natural processes, even though science currently has no clue as to what that ontology or process might be.

There you have it.

Henry believes that academic rules require that I quote "complete sentences" from an original author and, moreover, provide "context" in a way that that author likes. Such is not, of course, the usual academic standard. Indeed, Henry's views more closely resemble those of an embattled politician, who insists that a perfectly clear sentence has been decontextualized when he suddenly realizes how embarrassing the sentence is. This is a very utilitarian standard for how others may quote a person.

More importantly, Henry constantly contradicts himself on the central issues in this discussion. He simultaneously argues, for instance, that consciousness is a natural and not a supernatural process; and yet also that consciousness is independent of the natural because individual experience is more than the sum of scientific processes. So consciousness is both natural and not. At the same time.

I'll let him speak for himself.

In his words, "Consciousness is subjective. Period. That is just what it is. It is the nature of the beast; whether science ever one day understands it or not."

And again, "I choose to believe that I have freewill and that my decisions matter."

Both are statements of religious faith. The latter explicitly so, admirably clearly so. The former, by contrast, is an example of the faith that dare not speak its name: a proposition that denies future events with emotional force rather than intellectual rigor. In short, even if "science" learns to "understand" consciousness completely, "consciousness is subjective" and therefore cannot be completely comprehended scientifically. This is something like the dual nature of God: you can understand it fully and yet not understand it. It is "a mystery," something to be cogitated upon without hope of resolution.

Henry is a man of faith. When issues get tough, he asserts things in emotionally forceful terms, uses exclamation points and words like "Period" and thinks he has won the debate. That faith gets in the way of his conducting a rigorous discussion.

I stand by my statements in this debate, and leave it to others to decide whether my statements: "Consciousness is subjective," and/or "I believe in freewill," are matters of faith, or empirically justified (justified by experience).

But, again, if indeed they are best characterized as faith, so be it, it is the same faith that is shared by everyone that makes conscious decisions every day, choosing one path over another, assuming that they are real human agents, and that such decisions actually matter.

I suggest you, and others, consider whether your insistence that consciousness is solely a physical process, with no mental component; and that freewill is an illusion, is itself a matter of faith; particularly in the wake of overwhelming subjective and intuitive "evidence" to the contrary.

That said, Thanks for the debate LW, I appreciated your perspective.

If I may?

I tend to be fairly superficial in my understanding for most things science. I think most concepts should make sense but I recognize that some won't without some level of understanding. When it comes to this concept however it should make sense. At least I think it should.

The question is not do we have a soul. The question is do we need a soul. It seems near impossible to prove that we do or do not have a soul, so engaging in that sort of discussion is not going to accomplish much.

However a discussion about the necessity of a soul seems more fruitful. So pray tell what makes a soul necessary or unnecessary?

"The question is not do we have a soul. The question is do we need a soul. It seems near impossible to prove that we do or do not have a soul, so engaging in that sort of discussion is not going to accomplish much."

COMMENT: Well, if we need to believe in life after death, then a soul might come in handy. Therefore, arguing for such a soul may well represent a need. But aside from such needs, it is also an interesting issue.

The question is not about proof. As I see it, the question is about evidence. And considering evidence is never a waste of time; particularly as it relates to an issue that seems to be important to some.

In a nutshell, and as I see it, the scientific, physical evidence is overwhelmingly negative with respect to the existence of a soul. Nonetheless, well established paranormal evidence, as manifested by human experience through human reports--if one is willing to include such things as evidence (as I am), however weak it might be--leaves the matter somewhat open. Moreover, the existence of mental causation, as shown from established studies, suggests that notwithstanding massive correlations between the brain and the mind, there is something importantly independent about mind, which leaves some room for postulating a soul. Of course, a soul that survives death, much less one that is immortal, is quite another hill to climb.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> COMMENT: Well, if we need to believe in life after
> death, then a soul might come in handy. Therefore,
> arguing for such a soul may well represent a need.
> But aside from such needs, it is also an
> interesting issue.

Agreed, it is interesting. Agreed if we need to believe in life after death than a soul would come in handy. I would just say that I need lots of things that I imagine will make me happy, regardless of the lack of evidence any of those things will in fact make me happy.

>
> The question is not about proof. As I see it, the
> question is about evidence. And considering
> evidence is never a waste of time; particularly as
> it relates to an issue that seems to be important
> to some.
>
> In a nutshell, and as I see it, the scientific,
> physical evidence is overwhelmingly negative with
> respect to the existence of a soul. Nonetheless,
> well established paranormal evidence, as
> manifested by human experience through human
> reports--if one is willing to include such things
> as evidence (as I am), however weak it might
> be--leaves the matter somewhat open. Moreover, the
> existence of mental causation, as shown from
> established studies, suggests that notwithstanding
> massive correlations between the brain and the
> mind, there is something importantly independent
> about mind, which leaves some room for postulating
> a soul. Of course, a soul that survives death,
> much less one that is immortal, is quite another
> hill to climb.

The problem with accepting these things as evidence is that you cannot be selective. So that you can maintain any level of intellectual integrity you have to accept everything.

Henry is right on this one.

The 'soul/us/conscious' is all that survives death ---- thus who 'we' really are!

The physical body of a plant, animal or human is only a 'suit of clothes' for a soul!

The real question is to define who 'we' really are! I submit we are not the temporary 'physical body' most people believe they are.

Again many books, stories, etc. document past lives, spirits, after life, etc. etc. --------- to 'totally dismiss' these many 'experiences' as delusion or greed is similar to a "ostrich sticking its head in the sand"!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2016 08:30PM by spiritist.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Henry is right on this one.
>
> The 'soul/us/conscious' is all that survives death
> ---- thus who 'we' really are!

Awfully hard to claim Henry's "right" when there's no evidence to support the claim that anything like a "soul/us/conscious" survives our death. You may "believe" he's right, but you can't show any evidence he is.


> The physical body of a plant, animal or human is
> only a 'suit of clothes' for a soul!

Comforting idea, but one entirely lacking any supporting evidence of any kind.

> The real question is to define who 'we' really
> are! I submit we are not the temporary 'physical
> body' most people believe they are.

I submit you have zero evidence for that claim.

> Again many books, stories, etc. document past
> lives, spirits, after life, etc. etc. --------- to
> 'totally dismiss' these many 'experiences' as
> delusion or greed is similar to a "ostrich
> sticking its head in the sand"!

It's not similar to that at all, as I've pointed out to you many, many times. It's just being rational and reasonable.

Do you dismiss the millions of people who claim to have had a 'spiritual witness" of the truth of the book of mormon and the mormon church? You should, because there's more than ample evidence to show both are not "true." That should clearly serve as an example to you that claimed "experiences" are not evidence for the factuality of what the "experiences" induce people to believe. I don't have to explain what those millions of mormons DID "experience" -- I don't know (and neither do they). It's enough to point out that their "experiences" led them to false and/or unsupportable conclusions, and so their "experiences" are worthless.

The same applies to all these other "experiences" you keep trying to claim are evidence of things they aren't evidence of.

Kolob wrote:
Spiritiist wrote:
Again many books, stories, etc. document past
> lives, spirits, after life, etc. etc. --------- to
> 'totally dismiss' these many 'experiences' as
> delusion or greed is similar to a "ostrich
> sticking its head in the sand"!

It's not similar to that at all, as I've pointed out to you many, many times. It's just being rational and reasonable.

Calling all ostrichs! It's perfectly ok to be a ostrich. Enjoy your sand world!

But to stick your head in the sand when 'evidence' no one can counter, surrounds you is not 'Rational or reasonable' by any standard but a 'ostrich standard'.
-------------------------------------------------

Do you dismiss the millions of people who claim to have had a 'spiritual witness" of the truth of the book of mormon and the mormon church? I don't have to explain what those millions of mormons DID "experience" -- I don't know (and neither do they). It's enough to point out that their "experiences" led them to false and/or unsupportable conclusions, and so their "experiences" are worthless.

This is a False statement and you 'should' know it!!! I was in the church much longer than you and in stakes and wards across the US. I never heard of any 'members' (excludes gen authorities who are in on the SCAM) suggesting they had a 'spiritual witnesss' to the 'Bom and/or LDS church' ever!!!! I heard 'it feels good' to me by only a small percentage of people or just flat statements that they 'believe/know' the BoM and church are true by most without 'any' support ------ funny ---- just like brain washed people are brain washed to say from primary days or from the 13 stooges talks!

Please don't confuse Mormon 'feel good or just Know/believe' to 'spiritual experiences' or spiritual witness' possibly involving 'spirit'. You are clearly 'buying in' to Mormon 'mass media' ----- that is definitely what they would say as they could care less about 'truth'.

But I understand you have had not had any "spiritual experiences" so would rather just make up 'ridiculous' statements and beliefs to support your 'ostrich worldview'. This one clearly 'tops' what you have said in the past. I can't wait to hear your next 'topping statement'!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2016 11:37AM by spiritist.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Calling all ostrichs! It's perfectly ok to be a
> ostrich. Enjoy your sand world!

Sure, ignore facts and toss out insults. That's reasonable.
Not.

> But to stick your head in the sand when 'evidence'
> no one can counter, surrounds you is not 'Rational
> or reasonable' by any standard but a 'ostrich
> standard'.

There isn't evidence. And it the claims don't need "countering," they're worthless on their face. But of course, since you like the ideas behind the claims, you'll ignore that.

> This is a False statement and you 'should' know
> it!!!

It's not false, it's completely factual.

> I was in the church much longer than you
> and in stakes and wards across the US. I never
> heard of any 'members' (excludes gen authorities
> who are in on the SCAM) suggesting they had a
> 'spiritual witnesss' to the 'Bom and/or LDS
> church' ever!!!!

I'll suggest you simply weren't paying attention, then. I've had hundreds of mormons tell me that very thing. You can do a quick internet search and find many THOUSANDS of mormons making that exact claim. Your ignorance of facts doesn't make my statement not true, it just is evidence of your ignorance of facts (and inability to go find facts).

Here's one: https://www.mormon.org/me/3mgf
Where he says, "I have been spiritually guided by the Holy Ghost, almost as clear as a voice, which has led me to a Mormon Elder, the Book of Mormon, and to the restored Church of Jesus Christ... I have chosen His will over mine, because He has let me know what He wants for me, and I know for a certainty that He knows best. He has never let me down."

There are thousands (tens of thousands?) more on the 'net. Just go find them.

> Please don't confuse Mormon 'feel good or just
> Know/believe' to 'spiritual experiences' or
> spiritual witness' possibly involving 'spirit'.

I didn't, and your premise is false. Go do the internet search.

> You are clearly 'buying in' to Mormon 'mass media'
> ----- that is definitely what they would say as
> they could care less about 'truth'.

Now *that* is a false statement.

> But I understand you have had not had any
> "spiritual experiences" so would rather just make
> up 'ridiculous' statements and beliefs to support
> your 'ostrich worldview'. This one clearly 'tops'
> what you have said in the past. I can't wait to
> hear your next 'topping statement'!

Once again you go for the personal insults rather than counter an argument with facts and evidence. It's rather sad.

You also completely ignored the point, as even you admitted that GA's have said they had "spiritual experiences." Why are theirs no good, but yours are? Try answering the question instead of tossing out childish insults.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2016 12:15PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Sorry, but I don't insult 'people' I insult the way/attempts people use clearly false assertions to support 'ridiculous' worldviews ----- 'millions of Mormons ...' --- go to church once in awhile if you are planning on making ridiculous statements about 'Mormon testimonies/statements'. Oh, by the way, how many millions?

Also, 'numerous after life, spirit experiences, past life, medium experience, psychic, etc. etc. are not evidence' ---- really? Clearly, not to some who cannot look up the definition of 'evidence'!

Although, I would agree some 'reported' human experiences could be totally false or misunderstood to say they are not evidence is topping --- good job but not on par with the millions of Mormon statement! Come on 'dig deep' I know you have more 'topping' statements in you than this!

Oh, based on your speed to find 'one' online statement (possibly by someone on the church's payroll) you will be dead before you find 'Millions'!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2016 01:58PM by spiritist.

"Clearly, not to some who cannot look up the definition of 'evidence'!"

This again?

So, Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam and any number of religions are ALL true, each with supporting "evidence" based on the claims of the believers. They are just as relevant as what you claim about your beliefs.

I've heard many, personally, claim that the priesthood saved their lives, that they've heard from their ancestors that the church is true, that they've had experiences in the temple that prove it's true. According to you, based on that "evidence" we should all be back in the LDS church. Sit in any Fast and Testimony meeting and you will hear people fervently claim with tears in their eyes that the church is true and all the wonderful things that they claim prove it's true to them.

If your claims of spiritual "evidence" is sufficient "proof" of the validity of your claims, so is all of theirs. You're trying to say that some how your unsubstantiated claims are better than someone else's unsubstantiated claims. They aren't.

And why are you quibbling over the number of Mormons who make their claims. Who cares the number? Unsubstantiated claims, sorry, I keep saying that, according to you, they are eye-witnesses. Anyway, according to you counts their claims count as evidence, proof that what they believe is accurate and true.

How are your claims any different than a Mormon's? A Muslim's? A Pentecostal? or {insert any religion here}?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2016 01:01PM by Finally Free!.

Not to horn in, but evidence of something doesn't represent proof, just evidence. The real measuring stick of evidence is testable data. How does one test a concept that is admittedly not a physical concept? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

You get the disconnect? Myself and others are asking you to qualify and quantify the evidence. You are asking reject quality and accept that the quantity is evidence enough to qualify.

Thank you!

Unfortunately, the 'common sense/intelligence' level of board members is what it is!!! No offense of course!

I have had 'run ins' with this person before ----- she hates to be made to look like she makes 'ridiculous/delusional' statements. However, she persists so all I can conclude she wants attention ----- by all means lets give it to her!

Again, thanks for another opinion!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2016 02:09PM by spiritist.

Yea, I know what you mean. It's like some of us fell asleep when we were taught to simplify the expression.

To be fair, my response was directed to you. I feel that you are not having the same discussion as the other poster you've mentioned (the one that is clearly male).

To restate. I reject your evidence on the basis that it cannot be qualified or quantified.

I believe that you accept your evidence on the basis that there is so much, that it doesn't matter that none of it can be qualified or quantified. If I'm wrong please let me know.

This disconnect causes the conversation to come off the rails. Where you get offended and others start asking you to read the posts. It isn't at all fun.

You have every right to reject 'my personal evidence' who said or inferred you didn't.

But to go so far as saying it is 'not' evidence or the thousands of stories in books or on line are not evidence ---- is absolutely 'delusional'. I think you agree with that.

I personally read many paranormal posts, etc. and I believe 'some' are affected by the drugs they are on or I would need to question them to get a better explanation of what they stated before agreeing.

Many after life stories (people in the hospital on drugs) going to the other side are amazingly close to being accurate ------ based on my experience. However, the only problem I have noted is where they report seeing Jesus or some other religious figure. If they believe those figures introduced themselves as those 'special' people ----- I would reject their experience based on my experiences. If they say well it looked like a religious figure ---- that is highly possible. The first is possible but then I would be very interested in what they said ----- religiously. Who they suggest they are and what they said would be very critical.

One of the key purposes of a human returning to the 'between life' is to make them comfortable. So spirits, primarily relatives and spirit guide, appear as 'humans' to make them comfortable. If the 'spirit guide' appears as resembling some religious figure that would be ok but they would not 'lie' with 'religious doctrine' that are not true (obviously my opinion on the whole encounter).

As far as your concern that my paranormal experiences and others are not the best quality ----- totally agree but we get what we get! I would submit to believe that reports of many similar experiences indicate '0 quality' is not rational.

As far as your concern that my paranormal experiences and others cannot be quantified ----- Sorry, Jacob but that statement is as 'delusional' as the clearly false statements made by the above posters.

Maybe I don't know what you mean by 'quantifiable' ---- there are hundreds if not thousands of similar experiences.

See Henry's response for the 'eloquent' version of some of what I just said.

PS to Henry, Thanks for the voice of reason. I noted, and it's totally fair, that you do not want to defend me. But there does come a point when so many making such 'delusional' comments must be told either in my way or politely (your way) they are just plain wrong!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2016 03:35PM by spiritist.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unfortunately, the 'common sense/intelligence'
> level of board members is what it is!!! No
> offense of course!

Your insults are no less fallacious and obvious if you put "No offense" at the end of them.

> I have had 'run ins' with this person before -----
> she hates to be made to look like she makes
> 'ridiculous/delusional' statements. However, she
> persists so all I can conclude she wants attention
> ----- by all means lets give it to her!

You've had "run ins" with lots of people, mainly because you make outrageous claims of fact with no supporting evidence, and then hurl insults at anyone who challenges them.

And if you're referring to me -- I'm not female.

"Not to horn in, but evidence of something doesn't represent proof, just evidence."

COMMENT: Agree.
________________________________

The real measuring stick of evidence is testable data. How does one test a concept that is admittedly not a physical concept? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

COMMENT: According to Bayes' theorem (roughly), "evidence" is any fact that tends to make a theory more likely true that it would be if that fact did not exist. Thus, evidence as a broad term does not depend upon the data being "testable," or "replicable," although that would be the preferred situation. In virtually all of the soft sciences, data is accepted as evidence for a theory even when it is not testable. (consider, e.g. anthropology) So, that standard must be too strict.
___________________________________________

You get the disconnect? Myself and others are asking you to qualify and quantify the evidence. You are asking reject quality and accept that the quantity is evidence enough to qualify.

COMMENT: Not to respond for spiritist (who I am really not interested in defending), I am not getting your point here. Evidence is to some extent quantifiable in all sciences, including the "science" of the paranormal, simply by the fact that human reports of paranormal experiences can be counted, compared and be subject to statistical analysis. The quality of such evidence refers to whatever extent a bit of evidence supports an inference to a given conclusion or theory. Such an inference might well be entirely intuitive, and depend upon how one's scientific peers view such inference, in light of other evidence related to the issue.

As an extreme example, if some credible person claims to have seen a ghost (many have made such claims), such a report supports the inference or theory that a "soul" can exist separate from the physical body. The fact that people report seeing ghosts, makes ghosts (and souls) more probable that such a conclusion would be if no such experiences were reported.

Is that quality evidence? Well, certainly from the standpoint of science the answer is NO! It is not only untestable, and non-replicable, it is subject to well-known cognitive error mechanisms that might better explain it. Again, nevertheless, it is still evidence, just not very good evidence. To put it in another way, such a report is more than someone merely stating, "I believe in ghosts," without any empirical support. It does offer some support.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, but I don't insult 'people' I insult the
> way/attempts people use clearly false assertions
> to support 'ridiculous' worldviews -----

Evidence in your posts *clearly* shows that to be a false statement.

> 'millions of Mormons ...' --- go to church once in
> awhile if you are planning on making ridiculous
> statements about 'Mormon testimonies/statements'.
> Oh, by the way, how many millions?

Got me. The church claims 15 million members now, since its inception there have been somewhere around 30 million total members, and a large percentage of them have claimed in public and private statements to have received a "spiritual witness". The "millions" approximation is perfectly reasonable, without having to actually count them.

> Also, 'numerous after life, spirit experiences,
> past life, medium experience, psychic, etc. etc.
> are not evidence' ---- really? Clearly, not to
> some who cannot look up the definition of
> 'evidence'!

And there's the insults again, contradicting your claim up above. For something like the thousandth time:
such "experiences" are EVIDENCE that people have unverifiable "experiences." They are NOT evidence of afterlives, or that the "experiences" are "spiritual" or "psychic." I've pointed out your fallacies in such statements numerous times.

> Although, I would agree some 'reported' human
> experiences could be totally false or
> misunderstood to say they are not evidence is
> topping --- good job but not on par with the
> millions of Mormon statement! Come on 'dig deep'
> I know you have more 'topping' statements in you
> than this!

The ALL "could" be totally false. They ALL "could" be totally true and still not be "spiritual" or "psychic." They ALL "could" be totally true AND "spiritual" or "psychic." There's no way to tell which of those they ARE, and not "could" be. Which is why they're not evidence of what you claim.

And you gave no reason they're not "on par" with mormon spiritual claims, you just insist they're not. Why aren't they? You still haven't answered the question.

> Oh, based on your speed to find 'one' online
> statement (possibly by someone on the church's
> payroll) you will be dead before you find
> 'Millions'!

One google search produced thousands of such statements. I gave you one. If you're too lazy to do the google search yourself, that's your problem -- not mine.

And you still haven't answered the question: why are YOUR claimed "spiritual experiences" valid and evidence, and theirs aren't?

Come on, answer the question.

Completely delusional comments!

I am still waiting for you to 'prove' the delusional statement that "millions of people claim to have had a 'spiritual witness" of the truth of the book of mormon and the mormon church".

Also, the delusional comment that these 'claims' do not represent evidence?

I stand by my statement that in the many years I was in the church 'no one, o, zero' claimed to have had a 'spiritual witness' of the truth of the BoM or the Church. Also, spiritual experience do represent evidence except by Bizzaro world standards.

I would suggest going to sites such as Mormon Think or RFM but ---- you have been here longer than I have!

And to the comment above about thinking you were female ---- no!

> "I am still waiting for you to 'prove' the delusional statement that 'millions of people claim to have had a 'spiritual witness" of the truth of the book of mormon and the mormon church'."

Wait, you mean his saying that he's experienced something isn't "evidence"? I thought anyone making any claim at all was evidence and was proof. Are you saying it's not? Because that seems to go against all of your other statements that people claiming to have experienced something is proof of what you believe in.

>"...in the many years I was in the church 'no one, o, zero' claimed to have had a 'spiritual witness' of the truth of the BoM or the Church."

Wow... Just wow... Perhaps you somehow avoided something that most, if not everyone on this site has evidence. There are probably hundreds, of video's and blog entries from mormons literally stating that they've had a "spiritual witness" of the truth of the BoM and the church. That you refuse to look them up, while telling everyone else to read all the books providing your "evidence" is hypocritical.

La Saucie has soul. I don't, cuz I only listen to White Bread music...

I don't care about the afterlife really...I want to live for my physical life and try to help the world here, not wait for paradise when I die but create my paradise for the here and now. That's why when people here say "I live for eternity not here" I get agitated.

Death is real.

souls ?
heaven ?
afterlife ?
Huh ?

Does the brain generate consciousness or is it a receiver for it.

Discuss...