0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by Jeff CorkernIf none of the forum members here object, I would like to discuss the question of the existence of human souls from an entirely theoretical standpoint. My ultimate goal is to establish a theoretical foundation supporting the existence of souls and to stimulate scientific experiments to detect souls in the lab.
quote:If souls exist as real, physical entities, then it MUST be possible to deduce their existence in a completely objective, unemotional, rational fashion, i.e. a scientific fashion.
quote:I think I have done this, by deducing what the theoretical effects of souls would be on human behavior and showing that these effects are indeed present in humanity, in human action.
quote:As a partial demonstration that I might really be able to do this, please consider the following statement as a statement of pure, ice-cold logic, and rank it as "True" or "False.""If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath."
quote:Originally posted by Jeff CorkernI guarantee you all an interesting read and at least food for thought.
quote:If you-all don't think I am right, that's going to be fine with me. I might argue back, but I will remain polite at all times. And I WILL be intellectually honest---if I think you have proven me wrong, I WILL ADMIT IT AS SOON AS I SEE IT. (I have discovered this last to be a rare thing.)
quote:"Soul": An eternally existing, thinking and feeling structure that cannot be destroyed by any means whatsoever. Souls can be created, but once created, they cannot be destroyed, period. Essentially, a "soul" is exactly the same as the, oh, call it the "embodied" person, except without a body.
quote:another_someone, I do NOT presume that only human have souls. My little logic chain (I believe) indicates humans have souls but does not exclude animals from having souls. The question of whether or not animals have souls is not what I'm considering, but whether or not humans have souls.Actually, I find your question rather shocking because I once had quite an extraordinary personal experience that indicated animals really DO have souls. If y'all want to hear it, I will relate the story, but as this discussion is from the theoretical standpoint it really has no place here. In a strict scientific sense, it proves nothing. Although it does suggest animals could be used in soul-detection experiments, which would avoid a great host of ethical problems which would arise in using human beings.
quote:"Rational": In conformity with physical law.Allow me to expand a little on that proposition I made. This is the exact same place I started from, way back when."If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath."Consider the following scenario:A man named Michael Stone comes upon an anonymous man standing on a river bank in the fog. (This is a scenario from a recent story of mine.) They are utterly alone.Michael Stone makes absolutely certain there's no way anybody can ever find out what he's about to do. (Take this as a given, that no human will EVER find out.) He then shoots and kills the guy, loots his body, and tosses his body into the river.Question: Is Michael's action RATIONAL? Not good or bad, mind--but rational? Is he better off after shooting his victim than he was before he shot his victim?
quote:Given the above ability to create, but not destroy – do you believe the capacity of the universe to hold souls is infinite, or do you believe that the universe will one day become saturated with souls that cannot be destroyed, and will then lose its ability to create new souls?
quote:But it has sidestepped a key part of my question – if you regard social behaviour as an indicator of a soul, then do you regard complexity of society as a quantitative indicator of soul?
quote:In other words, do ants have more soul than polar bears, because ants live in more complex society, and display more altruistic behaviour to their social group than do polar bears?
quote:I cannot see how the question of rationality comes into it. Whatever Michael does, it will be in conformity with the physical laws of the universe.
quote:There has been a lot of research amongst evolutionists about the nature of altruism, and the evolutionary imperatives that might lead to altruistic behaviour, but none of this either requires a violation of the known laws of physics, nor requires any belief in a soul.[/quote]There is a factor the evolutionists are NOT considering.The influence of intelligence of human behavior.Whether or not, assuming an altruism gene or genes exists, to CHANGE the gene or genes. This is THE difference between humans and all the other animals. We understand all the physical laws, and how they affect our behavior, and we have the option of changing the forces affecting our behavior should we so decide.another_someone, you are a bad boy.(shaking finger) You have seduced me into wandering off the subject. This is something I could go on about at great length---BUT I CAN'T, in this thread. In this thread, I want to stay focused on the central problem.In another thread someday, after this one has concluded.Jeff Corkern"Either war goes away, or the human race goes away."---^NMG^Dark_Hunter
quote:Originally posted by Jeff Corkernquote:Originally posted by another_someoneGiven the above ability to create, but not destroy – do you believe the capacity of the universe to hold souls is infinite, or do you believe that the universe will one day become saturated with souls that cannot be destroyed, and will then lose its ability to create new souls?These are certainly good, solid questions.But I haven't a clue what the answers to them are. I am focused on first trying to establish the existence of souls. When I have done that, then I can worry about what the further implications, like the ones you mention, are.
quote:Originally posted by another_someoneGiven the above ability to create, but not destroy – do you believe the capacity of the universe to hold souls is infinite, or do you believe that the universe will one day become saturated with souls that cannot be destroyed, and will then lose its ability to create new souls?
quote:How MUCH soul does a person have?My answer: Build a soul-detector and MEASURE it.There's an easy way to solve this.Build a soul-detector, put the animals you mention in it, and MEASURE it.
quote:Yes, I am, and yes, they are, the way I state them. I am certainly equating them. I am assuming it is ALWAYS in a person's best self-interest to be completely rational at all times. Is this not true?
quote:But tell you what. Ignore that question. I am willing to completely toss the word "rational" and substitute "self-interest" if that makes this easier to understand and judge whether or not it is "True" or "False." (Which is still the goal. If you please, ladies and gentlement, I still want an answer to this question from everybody involved in this thread.)So, re-wording, is the following statement, judged in an ice-cold, objective, logical, unemotional fashion "True" or "False?""If there are no souls, a person best serves his self-interest by being a sociopath."
quote:Let me make my scenario even more clear.Before Michael shoots his victim, he hasn't a penny in his pocket.After he shoots his victim---after acting like a sociopath---he has $500 he looted from his victim's pockets.And there is NO chance any human will ever find out what he's done. He has escaped ALL human justice.Michael is up $500---and that's the ONLY PHYSICAL change.Has Michael done the smart thing? Acted in his own best interest?
quote:There is a factor the evolutionists are NOT considering.The influence of intelligence of human behavior.Whether or not, assuming an altruism gene or genes exists, to CHANGE the gene or genes. This is THE difference between humans and all the other animals. We understand all the physical laws, and how they affect our behavior, and we have the option of changing the forces affecting our behavior should we so decide.
quote:But yet you can state with certainty that souls cannot be destroyed?How can you know that souls, in all possible circumstances, cannot be destroyed; unless you can say how they will survive in extreme circumstances (e.g. at the point where the universe might become saturated with souls)?
quote:So, if I were to build a machine tomorrow, and it showed that you had a soul quantitative measure of 3.16, and the guy down the road has 3.12, and an ant had 4.23, and a polar bear has a measure of 1.17; how could you say whether those values were valid.If someone else built a very different soul-detector, and came up with different measures – how could you determine which is the more accurate measure?
quote:Yes, it is true that it is in his self interest to act rationally; but that is not the same as saying that all rational acts are in his self interest.
quote:But why would you assume that a person always acts according to their narrow self interest.
quote:Most people act as much out of habit as out of any calculated self interest (this is why we teach children a moral code, in order to train their habits to behave in a certain way – just as, in the extreme, soldiers are trained to give their lives to whatever cause they are fighting for).
quote:Whether Michael has done the smart thing depends upon what objectives Michael has in his life.
quote:Certainly, Michael has acted to maximise his short term survival; but is it the case that all human beings, or all animals, or all organisms of any kind, always act solely to maximise their short term survival?
quote:Why should they only act to maximise their own short term survival? Such a goal is just as arbitrary as any other goal?
quote:But what has intelligence to do with underlying motivation?
quote:Ofcourse, we do have a survival instinct; but that is an instinct, not an intelligent decision. Intelligence can help us achieve the goal, but it cannot determine the goal for us.
quote:We also have a reproductive instinct – but that too, is an instinct, not an act of intelligence. We can utilise our intelligence to seek to achieve our sexual desires, but intelligence cannot be the reason for having such a desire.
quote:In your example above, Michael acted intelligently if his actions maximised his ability to achieve his goals; but intelligence alone cannot determine what those coals should be. It is naively simplistic to assume that the only goal Michael would have is to maximise his life expectancy (all the more so, because it is a goal that one day is guaranteed to fail, since none of us are immortal).
quote:Originally posted by Jeff CorkernAnother_someone, I am trying to establish the EXISTENCE of souls first. You can keep on asking me questions about souls themselves if you want, but I'll tell you right now I'm only going to have two answers.1.) I don't know.2) Build a soul-detecting machine and measure it.
quote:I agree that we train people to act in a certain way, to be moral.My question is WHY? Why do we do this? What is the physical origin of the concept of morality? Stars and planets have physical reasons for their existence. What is the corresponding physical force that brought the concept of "morality" into being?I note this weird thing called "morality" often conflicts violently with the dictates of evolution---and that's flatly impossible, it never should've appeared, never should've happened.
quote:Whatever it is Michael wants, he now has $500 more to get it with.
quote:quote:Certainly, Michael has acted to maximise his short term survival; but is it the case that all human beings, or all animals, or all organisms of any kind, always act solely to maximise their short term survival?So he has.No, they don't, surely. But in this particular instance, Michael has.The question is, is it rational.
quote:Why do people do what they do?Try this one.PEOPLE DO WHATEVER IT IS THEY DO IN ORDER TO TRY TO BE HAPPY.
quote:Hmph, I agree. I note also that while we possess instincts, we can also ignore them if we wish. So while instinct may push us in certain directions, in the end they do NOT control us.
quote:quote:In your example above, Michael acted intelligently if his actions maximised his ability to achieve his goals; but intelligence alone cannot determine what those coals should be. It is naively simplistic to assume that the only goal Michael would have is to maximise his life expectancy (all the more so, because it is a goal that one day is guaranteed to fail, since none of us are immortal).No argument here either.Still waiting for a judgement here so we can move on. "TRUE" or "FALSE." Not pushing, you understand, just reminding you of what the eventual goal is.