:evil:
I'll attempt to answer the original question just as soon as a soul is detected. Until then, it's the same as "Do We Have A <bunch of meaningless letters> Without A Brain?"
I have heard of studies done on salamanders or something similar to them. They burned and killed off parts of the brain until literally nothing was left and it still was alive. (apparently) And there is a similar story I heard from different places a while ago about a chicken with it's head cut off and it survived for a month or so from the farmer feeding it through its neck.
Soul? I don't know. Probably not. But it would be interesting to see why that is that those experiments went the way they did? Like: is it out of body consciousness? If it is, how can we test it? or is it the cells in general that keep the whole organism alive and the brain isn't that important? And how does this relate to us?
:evil:
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"I have heard of studies done on salamanders or something similar to them. They burned and killed off parts of the brain until literally nothing was left and it still was alive. (apparently)
The question isn't whether we can have life without a brain. Bacteria are alive. Single-celled creatures are alive. Insects have no brains. The question was whether we can have a soul without a brain, and since "soul" has never been defined (not in the sense that Christianity uses it), the question is meaningless. A question that includes a word that has no defined meaning has no answer. It's like asking what 3 divided by some number is.
No. There's no such thing as a soul, so with or without a brain, we don't have one.
> Also, many believers claim that since science still does not have a confirmed theory of consciousness, this makes it possible that it will never develop such a theory based on matter alone.
Many believers claim that the earth is flat. So?
At one time, we had no theory to explain lightning. Did that mean we never would? It wasn't until the 20th Century that we understood where the sun's energy came from. The fact that we didn't know before we knew didn't mean that we would never know.
Frank
But we'll probably never discover how huge intelligence sinks - like fundies - continue to function.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "PickelledEggs"A question that includes a word that has no defined meaning has no answer. It's like asking what 3 divided by some number is.
But that question does have an answer. What is 3 divided by some number? Some other number or quite possibly also 3.
And the answer to whether we can have a soul without a brain is "possibly and possibly not". IOW, no answer.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "PickelledEggs"I have heard of studies done on salamanders or something similar to them. They burned and killed off parts of the brain until literally nothing was left and it still was alive. (apparently)
The question isn't whether we can have life without a brain. Bacteria are alive. Single-celled creatures are alive. Insects have no brains. The question was whether we can have a soul without a brain, and since "soul" has never been defined (not in the sense that Christianity uses it), the question is meaningless. A question that includes a word that has no defined meaning has no answer. It's like asking what 3 divided by some number is.
The thing I was getting at is-
Is our consciousness our soul?
If it is possible that the brain isn't the only thing keeping us alive, is it also possible that our consciousness is not just in our brain, but throughout our body? (like the rest of our nervous system and the rest of our body tissue)
Maybe what some people call our soul is just our imprinted DNA in all of our cells and not some ghost like thing. I also heard of some instances of people with transplants having memories from the person they got the body part from. If those reports are true maybe our memories and what makes us ourselves (or soul) is just the DNA imprint in our cells and the brain is just part of it.
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "PickelledEggs"I have heard of studies done on salamanders or something similar to them. They burned and killed off parts of the brain until literally nothing was left and it still was alive. (apparently)
The question isn't whether we can have life without a brain. Bacteria are alive. Single-celled creatures are alive. Insects have no brains. The question was whether we can have a soul without a brain, and since "soul" has never been defined (not in the sense that Christianity uses it), the question is meaningless. A question that includes a word that has no defined meaning has no answer. It's like asking what 3 divided by some number is.
The thing I was getting at is-
Is our consciousness our soul?
If it is possible that the brain isn't the only thing keeping us alive, is it also possible that our consciousness is not just in our brain, but throughout our body? (like the rest of our nervous system and the rest of our body tissue)
Maybe what some people call our soul is just our imprinted DNA in all of our cells and not some ghost like thing. I also heard of some instances of people with transplants having memories from the person they got the body part from. If those reports are true maybe our memories and what makes us ourselves (or soul) is just the DNA imprint in our cells and the brain is just part of it.
When Benny shows up he'll go *there* with you.
I'd talk about *soul* but I'd go soundin all spiritual and shit. And that gets me into hot water round here.
:rollin:
> Is our consciousness our soul?
It seems like you are trying to define a soul into existence. The common conception of "soul" is something non-material that survives the death of the body. It doesn't exist. If consciousness and soul are the same thing, we don't need the word, "soul." Just say, "consciousness."
> If it is possible that the brain isn't the only thing keeping us alive, is it also possible that our consciousness is not just in our brain, but throughout our body? (like the rest of our nervous system and the rest of our body tissue)
There is no evidence for this. All the functions of consciousness are carried out by the brain.
> Maybe what some people call our soul is just our imprinted DNA in all of our cells and not some ghost like thing. I also heard of some instances of people with transplants having memories from the person they got the body part from. If those reports are true maybe our memories and what makes us ourselves (or soul) is just the DNA imprint in our cells and the brain is just part of it.
Again, you seem to be fishing for something to call "soul." There's not much to be gained by that exercise.
Frank
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"Is our consciousness our soul?
We still don't have a coherent definition of "soul", so the question is meaningless.
QuoteIf it is possible that the brain isn't the only thing keeping us alive
It's definite that it's not, since species that don't have brains (worms, insects, etc.) are still alive. So are plants and bacteria.
Quoteis it also possible that our consciousness is not just in our brain
One has nothing to do with the other. Is a tree "conscious"? Does an excised tumor retain some of the consciousness after it's removed?
As Frank said, you're searching for a way to define a soul into existence - when a) there's no evidence that such a thing exists and b) there's no need for such a thing to explain anything.
I am simply trying to expand on the original question of "do we have a soul without a brain" with other similar questions. I'm not even saying a soul is even there. Personally I think its all B.S. but I like thinking about this stuff either way b.s. or not just like I like researching Norse Mythology. It doesn't make Norse Mythology true because I enjoy reading up on it.
What I was implying was we have to re-define what a soul is to actually answer this question.
And as for consciousness I'm not talking about hocus pocus ghosts in a person till it dies. I'm talking about being mentally capable of something other than instinctive things like like having morals, create gods, and have these questions like if we have a soul without a brain... other than just eat, sleep, poop, and f**k.
Hinduism has many options. Some say soul brain is Big Daddy's brain. Acts over long distances. Others say Big Daddy is in you. Some say you yourself are the Big Daddy but under a veil of ignorance created by your own brain. What scenario appeals to you?
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Hinduism has many options. Some say soul brain is Big Daddy's brain. Acts over long distances. Others say Big Daddy is in you. Some say you yourself are the Big Daddy but under a veil of ignorance created by your own brain. What scenario appeals to you?
The one that is real. But I don't think it involves "big daddy".
QuoteOthers say Big Daddy is in you.
:rollin: that sounds provocative
If "Big Daddy" is ever in me, it means I'm in prison and somebody is holding me down. Probably a couple of guys.
I learned about stocks from Big Daddy...
[youtube:1qswmccm]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6VNGqN8hwk[/youtube:1qswmccm]
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "PickelledEggs"Quote from: "Colanth"The question isn't whether we can have life without a brain. Bacteria are alive. Single-celled creatures are alive. Insects have no brains. The question was whether we can have a soul without a brain, and since "soul" has never been defined (not in the sense that Christianity uses it), the question is meaningless. A question that includes a word that has no defined meaning has no answer. It's like asking what 3 divided by some number is.
The thing I was getting at is-
Is our consciousness our soul?
If it is possible that the brain isn't the only thing keeping us alive, is it also possible that our consciousness is not just in our brain, but throughout our body? (like the rest of our nervous system and the rest of our body tissue)
Maybe what some people call our soul is just our imprinted DNA in all of our cells and not some ghost like thing. I also heard of some instances of people with transplants having memories from the person they got the body part from. If those reports are true maybe our memories and what makes us ourselves (or soul) is just the DNA imprint in our cells and the brain is just part of it.
When Benny shows up he'll go *there* with you.
You're supposed to say it 3 times, in a darkened room with candles and a mirror.
I'm not as woo as you think I am. The only "woo" thing I think I can be accused of is that my world view centers on direct experience, rather than on any model of it. This is seen as flakey by those who believe in a physical monism. However, I haven't discarded the idea that everyone who calls me flakey is a figment of my imagination, so they can just shush while I get down to the more important work of masturbating on a crowded bus.
I personally agree (I think-- I haven't read them) with the others here, in that the "imprint" of memories on non-brain parts is unlikely. MUCH more likely is that a person receiving a transplant has a psychological reaction to having someone else's body parts contributing to his survival.
The problem with anecdotes is that they aren't all considered, and that they receive a kind of post-effect confirmation bias. So in the first case, it may be that many hundreds of people THINK they have implanted memories, but only the few who end up being "right" (i.e. coincidentally lucky) end up making it onto Fox News.
In the second case, people may learn something about the donor, and then falsely remember having thought/said something about the donor before they got the information. It is known that people can have real-feeling memories implanted by simple suggestion. For example, if you ask someone to recall a childhood experience that never happened, and then ask them again a year later, they are likely to say, "Oh yeah, I totally remember that." So the person isn't lying-- they just don't understand that real-feeling memories can be wrong.
Quote from: "Plu"The one that is real. But I don't think it involves "big daddy".
That is my signature. 'Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya; jeevo Brahmaiva na parah' - Brahman (the ultimate constituent of the universe) is truth, a living being is no different from Brahman. Go one step further, not just a living being but all things - 'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'. (Said some 3,000 years ago in Mandukya Upanishad).
Quote from: "Plu"The one that is real. But I don't think it involves "big daddy".
That is my signature. 'Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya; jeevo Brahmaiva na parah' - Brahman (the ultimate constituent of the universe) is truth, a living being is no different from Brahman. Go one step further, not just a living being but all things - 'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'. (Said some 3,000 years ago in Mandukya Upanishad).
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"QuoteOthers say Big Daddy is in you.
:rollin: that sounds provocative
Not so. Perhaps wise, at least for a society. Some say that soul is but a part of God in you. Evil deeds put a weight on the soul and it is pained. That is why in Hindi - 'Kyon apni atma ko dukha deta hai!' (Why are you giving pain to your soul or making it sad'. Engage in good deeds, it will please your atma, therefore, the Almighty. Of course, a theist explanation.
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"QuoteOthers say Big Daddy is in you.
:rollin: that sounds provocative
Not so. Perhaps wise, at least for a society. Some say that soul is but a part of God in you. Evil deeds put a weight on the soul and it is pained. That is why in Hindi - 'Kyon apni atma ko dukha deta hai!' (Why are you giving pain to your soul or making it sad'. Engage in good deeds, it will please your atma, therefore, the Almighty. Of course, a theist explanation.[/quote]
I was actually thinking some dirty thoughts :)
But in all seriousness. I see what you're saying.
QuoteThat is my signature. 'Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya; jeevo Brahmaiva na parah' - Brahman (the ultimate constituent of the universe) is truth, a living being is no different from Brahman. Go one step further, not just a living being but all things - 'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'. (Said some 3,000 years ago in Mandukya Upanishad).
Yeah, the main problem I have with your claim was the part about labeling it "big daddy", which is trying to personify it, which is nonsensical. The rest of it makes sense.
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Perhaps wise, at least for a society. Some say that soul is but a part of God in you. Evil deeds put a weight on the soul and it is pained. That is why in Hindi - 'Kyon apni atma ko dukha deta hai!' (Why are you giving pain to your soul or making it sad'. Engage in good deeds, it will please your atma, therefore, the Almighty. Of course, a theist explanation.
Some say many foolish things. That some say them doesn't make them wise sayings.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Perhaps wise, at least for a society.
Some say many foolish things. That some say them doesn't make them wise sayings.
You did not pay attention to the last part of my post. It stopped socities from degenerating into anarchy. It is false, but it had its uses at one time.
Quote from: "Plu"Yeah, the main problem I have with your claim was the part about labeling it "big daddy", which is trying to personify it, which is nonsensical. The rest of it makes sense.
Big Daddy is for the believers. For an strong atheist like me, for the moment it is physical energy, which constitutes all things in the universe. OI can change this view if science says something else.
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Perhaps wise, at least for a society.
Some say many foolish things. That some say them doesn't make them wise sayings.
You did not pay attention to the last part of my post. It stopped socities from degenerating into anarchy. It is false, but it had its uses at one time.
1) Why is anarchy degeneration?
2) Why is saying foolish things wise?
Quote1) Why is anarchy degeneration?
Can you name one way in which anarchy would improve society? Because I really can't come up with anything that isn't absolutely horrifying... I hear people talking about anarchy from time to time, but really I can't see any way it wouldn't end civilization and the human race as we know them.
Quote from: "Plu"Quote1) Why is anarchy degeneration?
Can you name one way in which anarchy would improve society? Because I really can't come up with anything that isn't absolutely horrifying... I hear people talking about anarchy from time to time, but really I can't see any way it wouldn't end civilization and the human race as we know them.
There's no such thing as anarchy. As soon as you get 2 people together, one or both of them are going to start making rules.
As soon as you lose the federal government, you'll have gangs of thugs on the highway demanding a toll for passage. That's a kind of taxation, and that's government.
So I think anarchy is a personal choice to stand up against tyranny-- you are declaring that you do not accept the rules that others have collectively chosen to impose on you.
Quote from: "bennyboy"Quote from: "Plu"Quote1) Why is anarchy degeneration?
Can you name one way in which anarchy would improve society? Because I really can't come up with anything that isn't absolutely horrifying... I hear people talking about anarchy from time to time, but really I can't see any way it wouldn't end civilization and the human race as we know them.
There's no such thing as anarchy. As soon as you get 2 people together, one or both of them are going to start making rules.
As soon as you lose the federal government, you'll have gangs of thugs on the highway demanding a toll for passage. That's a kind of taxation, and that's government.
So I think anarchy is a personal choice to stand up against tyranny-- you are declaring that you do not accept the rules that others have collectively chosen to impose on you.
Whut?
I'm not quite sure that's what you meant, Benny.
or
I'm confused. Which is more likely.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "bennyboy"There's no such thing as anarchy. As soon as you get 2 people together, one or both of them are going to start making rules.
As soon as you lose the federal government, you'll have gangs of thugs on the highway demanding a toll for passage. That's a kind of taxation, and that's government.
So I think anarchy is a personal choice to stand up against tyranny-- you are declaring that you do not accept the rules that others have collectively chosen to impose on you.
Whut?
I'm not quite sure that's what you meant, Benny.
or
I'm confused. Which is more likely.
One second he says anarchy doesn't exist and then goes on to define anarchy to mean "personal choice to stand up against tyranny." If you're confused, you have a good reason to be.
We should all like look up the definition of words before defining them, as redefining is kind of like undefining. Sort of.
Quote from: "Saul the not so great!"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "bennyboy"There's no such thing as anarchy. As soon as you get 2 people together, one or both of them are going to start making rules.
As soon as you lose the federal government, you'll have gangs of thugs on the highway demanding a toll for passage. That's a kind of taxation, and that's government.
So I think anarchy is a personal choice to stand up against tyranny-- you are declaring that you do not accept the rules that others have collectively chosen to impose on you.
Whut?
I'm not quite sure that's what you meant, Benny.
or
I'm confused. Which is more likely.
One second he says anarchy doesn't exist and then goes on to define anarchy to mean "personal choice to stand up against tyranny." If you're confused, you have a good reason to be.
Thanks Saul. (good to see you by the way)
oxox
Quote from: "Saul the not so great!"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "bennyboy"There's no such thing as anarchy. As soon as you get 2 people together, one or both of them are going to start making rules.
As soon as you lose the federal government, you'll have gangs of thugs on the highway demanding a toll for passage. That's a kind of taxation, and that's government.
So I think anarchy is a personal choice to stand up against tyranny-- you are declaring that you do not accept the rules that others have collectively chosen to impose on you.
Whut?
I'm not quite sure that's what you meant, Benny.
or
I'm confused. Which is more likely.
One second he says anarchy doesn't exist and then goes on to define anarchy to mean "personal choice to stand up against tyranny." If you're confused, you have a good reason to be.
Sorry. Let me clarify.
Anarchy as a system of (non-)government or a social agreement cannot exist. It only exists as a fantasy.
Let's say there's a nuclear war, and people are starving, and someone makes the mistake of crawling in through Bubba's window. Bubba says, "Ain't no guvmint to save you now, boy. Anarchy!" and blows a shotgun blast through the man's chest. Guess what? Bubba isn't an anarchist-- he's established himself as king of his own little world. Anarchists don't really care about freedom-- they just fantasize about having the power to arbitrarily limit or violate the freedoms of others whenever they want.
When someone says they are an anarchist, I hear it as: "I'm a loser, with no real power in the world, because society won't grant me power for watching Jerry Springer reruns and eating donuts. But I can figure out how to pull a trigger."
Quote from: "stromboli"We should all like look up the definition of words before defining them, as redefining is kind of like undefining. Sort of.
Depending on what "defining" means, of course.
If a soul is by definition some part of a person that exists beyond their physical body then I am not sure how something like that could be examined scientifically.
If we reach a point technologically where individual's neurologic functions can be replicated in some kind of non-biologic electronic medium would that meet the definition of a soul?
My father, an atheist, taught me as a child that the only form of immortality is through siring children and passing on genetic material and memories. Does my mother's "soul" exist in me because I carry her genetic material and memories of her? When there is no genetic line and no one remembers her would her "soul" be lost?
When the human race runs it course and dies out and there is no intelligent entity around to remember the human race will it even matter that humanity existed?
Uggg, I get a lip twitch reading titles to threads like this.
To answer the question in the thread title, NO! There is no such thing as a soul.
That is like trying to separate speed from a car. We are our brains in motion, nothing more. When our brain dies we die.
Quote from: "bennyboy"Sorry. Let me clarify.
Anarchy as a system of (non-)government or a social agreement cannot exist. It only exists as a fantasy.
Let's say there's a nuclear war, and people are starving, and someone makes the mistake of crawling in through Bubba's window. Bubba says, "Ain't no guvmint to save you now, boy. Anarchy!" and blows a shotgun blast through the man's chest. Guess what? Bubba isn't an anarchist-- he's established himself as king of his own little world. Anarchists don't really care about freedom-- they just fantasize about having the power to arbitrarily limit or violate the freedoms of others whenever they want.
When someone says they are an anarchist, I hear it as: "I'm a loser, with no real power in the world, because society won't grant me power for watching Jerry Springer reruns and eating donuts. But I can figure out how to pull a trigger."
I find it hard to disagree with this description.
The paradox of anarchy is that one has to rebel against the system and reject it. But in so-doing you are creating your own 'system' for lack of a better word which, even though there may be no other proponents of it, is a system that you as an individual follows. As 'flakey' as the system might be it's still a system, and so in the general term of the word cannot be considered 'anarchistic'.
The irony of course is that many big political systems are built with the notion of anarchy imbued within them.
The realist interpretation of the international political game (statecraft, or the forming of states) is built on the assumption that without the state there is anarchy. So it might be an invented term to some degree, but still has a massive impact on the way international politics is formed and goverened. But I doubt most self-proclaimed 'anarchists' ever think or know about that.
The religious idea of the soul is somewhat like other religious ideas in that it is made woolly and nebulous enough to defy any attempts pin down exactly what it is we are talking about, and thus disprove it. Smoke and mirrors again...
I have no memories from before I was born. That answers the question for me.
Quote from: "Satt"I have no memories from before I was born. That answers the question for me.
Try Scientology - they'll sort
that out for ya. E-meters at the ready, folks! :wink:
:evil:
Quote from: "Solitary"Do Christians have a brain without a soul? :shock: :rollin: Solitary
Very generous of you, sir.... :lol:
Quote from: "Colanth"1) Why is anarchy degeneration? 2) Why is saying foolish things wise?
1) In an anarchist society, who would save you when you sleep. Will there really be a society?
2. Not foolish, but may not be true. Just like rubbing a child's hand and saying that it would make the pain go away.
(Missed your post for a long time)
As Benny explained quite well, "anarchist society" is a contradiction in terms.
And the second part basically says "sometimes white lies are ok", then? Because that's far more sensical than what you were saying about "saying foolish things can be wise".
Yes, Benny and others explained the point excellently.
"Love" is a hormonal reaction in the brain that can be measured, so it's definately a real thing.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Quote from: "jansnyder"I doubt it. I am also not sure about the existence of love, and consider that society is structured around the imaginary idea of love existing, so that there is a sort of conspiracy, that a man who loves his job, is treated better than one who doesnt, and someone who doesnt love his nation or state is considered unenlightened, and there are a whole system of things you have to love in order to be a person in the eyes of normal people. I consider this a near totalitarian oppression in civilization. I think from this love notion people develop the ability to leave logic behind and enter a total fantasy world which is at once provincial and idiotic. From this sentimentalism, people are able to imagine a soul.
I'm guessing you're childless?