Do you believe in a soul?

[Revenant]

Strangely enough, the whole creation aspect of Christianity makes sense if you equate 'God' with energy.

[Idem]

Since you can't test it, measure it, quantify it, or even qualify it by measuring its interaction with something else, the whole concept is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.

And I tell you even if you can, it is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.

knowing inner workings of mind, knowing about the body etc =/= useless

[Kai]

So if it isn't science it is useless. What a bleak existence you must live.

If its not science, I'm not going to pass it off as science.

Also,  at obvious misdirect.

Neither have I.  I merely proposed a theory.  We know something drives the human body, some of us choose to call it a 'soul'. Whether it is something divine or mundane matters not. The energy exist upon death it leaves the body.  Where it goes is pure fluff.  The energy exist, it can be measured and calculated. We know it is there as the body cannot move without energy.  It really doesn't matter what its origins may be, it is there.  Something causes the brain to think, the heart to pump, the lungs to breathe, and the eyes to see.  Something causes the hate, the love, the confusion, and the curiosity.  Sure it could be chemicals, but what causes those chemicals.  IT ultimately leads to the energy which drives the human body.  Why can't that energy be the soul?  It is ultimately, what drives us all.

....Okay, I'm gonna keep giving you chances because I'm enjoying this too much.

1) You proposed a hypothesis, not a theory, and you didn't base it on any previous data I know of so you more or less just made something up.

2) Biology drives the body, the same as it drives every other living thing. You know, proteins synthesis, metabolism, nutrient transport?

3) The energy that the body operates under is chemical energy from food. 

4) The heart is caused to pump by several mechanisms, all physiological. The brain 'thinks' due to stimulus from the environment, and learning based on said stimulus. Sure, conciousness is emergent from the basics, but since you talked about heartbeat I figured you weren't going for that.

5) I don't have the space here to give you a full rundown of neural physiology. I don't know all of it myself, and I'm okay with that, because I know that physiological processes can and will be tested experimentally because they can be measured, so I am okay with changing my "belief" when that time comes if the details are a little different.

You've shown that you have absolutely no knowledge about basic biology, and no basis in reality.

Why don't you just go become a brethanarian, since you think the body gets its energy from somewhere more "divine" that daily consumption of biological material?

[Kai]

Since you can't test it, measure it, quantify it, or even qualify it by measuring its interaction with something else, the whole concept is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.

And I tell you even if you can, it is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.

knowing inner workings of mind =/= useless

True. There are ways to measure and study consciousness outside of neuroscience though. Thats what Psychology is for. Its still measurable and testable, its just in emergent measurements rather than basal, physical measurements. The mind interacts with the world. Thats testable, and sometimes even measurable, quantifiable and quantifiable.

[Kai]

Strangely enough, the whole creation aspect of Christianity makes sense if you equate 'God' with energy.

How?

[Idem]

Also, because I thought it was relevant to the discussion:  are there any innate ideas?  "Innate" meaning "independent of interaction with the world"  through the senses etc.

[Kai]

Also, because I thought it was relevant to the discussion:  are there any innate ideas?

I don't consider the study of ideas to be a science though. ^_^

[Revenant]

So if it isn't science it is useless. What a bleak existence you must live.

If its not science, I'm not going to pass it off as science.

Also,  at obvious misdirect.

Neither have I.  I merely proposed a theory.  We know something drives the human body, some of us choose to call it a 'soul'. Whether it is something divine or mundane matters not. The energy exist upon death it leaves the body.  Where it goes is pure fluff.  The energy exist, it can be measured and calculated. We know it is there as the body cannot move without energy.  It really doesn't matter what its origins may be, it is there.  Something causes the brain to think, the heart to pump, the lungs to breathe, and the eyes to see.  Something causes the hate, the love, the confusion, and the curiosity.  Sure it could be chemicals, but what causes those chemicals.  IT ultimately leads to the energy which drives the human body.  Why can't that energy be the soul?  It is ultimately, what drives us all.

....Okay, I'm gonna keep giving you chances because I'm enjoying this too much.

1) You proposed a hypothesis, not a theory, and you didn't base it on any previous data I know of so you more or less just made something up.

2) Biology drives the body, the same as it drives every other living thing. You know, proteins synthesis, metabolism, nutrient transport?

3) The energy that the body operates under is chemical energy from food. 

4) The heart is caused to pump by several mechanisms, all physiological. The brain 'thinks' due to stimulus from the environment, and learning based on said stimulus. Sure, conciousness is emergent from the basics, but since you talked about heartbeat I figured you weren't going for that.

5) I don't have the space here to give you a full rundown of neural physiology. I don't know all of it myself, and I'm okay with that, because I know that physiological processes can and will be tested experimentally because they can be measured, so I am okay with changing my "belief" when that time comes if the details are a little different.

You've shown that you have absolutely no knowledge about basic biology, and no basis in reality.

Why don't you just go become a brethanarian, since you think the body gets its energy from somewhere more "divine" that daily consumption of biological material?

1) I proposed a theory, work = applied energy.

2) Biochemistry drives the body, Biology is merely the study of the living. Bio=living, ology=study of.

3)Chemical energy from food which is processed from other commands that also uses energy.  By this method, you are saying we must eat first in order to do anything.  However, a machine must have initial energy to start.  This cannot be food as we begin the living process as single cells absent of a food source.

4)The heart is caused to pump because it does, a heart outside of the body with an applied current will beat.  The chemicals issued by the brain and other functions causes the heart to beat in a certain fashion.

5) The brain is composed of specialized neurons which send electrical signals to each other through a chemical medium.  How these neurons differ exactly from those which feel pain and drive the muscles is unclear at this time.


And last I am not saying that the body get its energy from something more divine, but that energy in and of itself is the divine.

[Idem]

Re:  kai   Right.  I suppose it would fall under philosophy then.

Re:  False Profit.  I know this may seem like semantics to you, but a "theory" in science is a hypothesis that has been tried and tested, "proven" to be true. A well-tested explanation for a wide range of observations.  A hypothesis is basically an educated guess that can be tested.

[Kai]

Re:  kai   Right.  I suppose it would fall under philosophy then.

Re:  False Profit.  I know this may seem like semantics to you, but a "theory" in science is a hypothesis that has been tried and tested, "proven" to be true. A well-tested explanation for a wide range of observations.

I don't have a problem with philosophy either. I just have a problem with it maskarading as science.

Also, thanks Idem for pointing that out.

[Revenant]

Re:  kai   Right.  I suppose it would fall under philosophy then.

Re:  False Profit.  I know this may seem like semantics to you, but a "theory" in science is a hypothesis that has been tried and tested, "proven" to be true. A well-tested explanation for a wide range of observations.

I don't have a problem with philosophy either. I just have a problem with it maskarading as science.

Also, thanks Idem for pointing that out.

Science is Philosphy.

[Idem]

Science is Philosphy.

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

[Revenant]

Science is Philosphy.

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

Science is a means to explain life and all that is around us. It is just more organized than most other philosophies.

[Idem]

Science is Philosphy.

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

Science is a means to explain life and that around us.

Through experiments, gathering data, taking into account conflicting data, etc.

Philosophy does it just through thinking about it.  Thinking about it rationally, yes, but it isn't science.

It is just more organized than most other philosophies.

Which makes a big difference.

Try thinking about why your car won't start.  Is it angry at you?  Does it have a soul?  That's philosophy.

Try thinking about why your car won't start, and then use previous experience to figure out why.  Test different "solutions" etc.  That's science.

[Revenant]

Science is Philosphy.

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

Science is a means to explain life and that around us.

Through experiments, gathering data, taking into account conflicting data, etc.

Philosophy does it just through thinking about it.

All of which requires thought.  Applied thinking, but thinking nonetheless.