Do you believe in a soul?

[Kai]

Careful Cainad, Mexica Rain Gods don't like to be poked fun at. 

[P3nT4gR4m]

Careful Cainad, Mexica Rain Gods don't like to be poked fun at. 

Bastard! You beat me to it

[Cainad (dec.)]

I don't know what you're talki- *BRZZZZT* YEOW!

Guuuuhhhhhhh.... *drool*

*twitch*


You're absolutely right. I will make a monkey sacrifice of thirteen fucking idiots by midnight tonight.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Uncle Al Says:

You may write x for y in your equations, so long as you consistently write y for x. They remain unchanged—and unsolved. Is not all our knowledge" an example of this fallacy of writing one unknown for another, and then crowing like Peter's cock?
....
we have got values of y and z for x, and values of x and z for y—all our equations are indeterminate; all our knowledge is relative, even in a narrower sense than is usually implied by the statement. Under the whip of the clown God, our performing donkeys the philosophers and men of science run round and round in the ring; they have amusing tricks: they are cleverly trained; but they get nowhere.

I don't seem to be getting anywhere myself.


You can call it soul or energy or Ugghamaluotious... its still just 'the stuff that makes us work'. And if you choose to use labels like 'soul', you're accepting all the bullshit that's been tied to the label for thousands of years.

EOT

[Kai]

Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine, physics, and chemistry, while the other lead to...what?

There is a point where you say, "which model is more useful?", and then stick with it. Or maybe you don't, being one of those model agnostics.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine, physics, and chemistry, while the other lead to...what?

There is a point where you say, "which model is more useful?", and then stick with it. Or maybe you don't, being one of those model agnostics.

Of course some models are more useful than others... for some things. If I want to cure cancer or map the human genome, then I'd be using the models provided through scientific processes. My point was not, "science = same as crackheaded 'We Can Has Soul?' theory", but rather, we can use X or Y or Z or energy or Soul or NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL.

X, Y and Z are useful placeholders, but without context, they're not all that useful... energy is more useful, since it is a label that gives us some information. Soul is kinda useful, but it unfortunately brings in craploads of baggage from 2000+ years of neurological and neurolinguistic hallucinations.

NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL is useful, but only if I define it as "NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL : (noun) The stuff inside humans that powers their physical processes.

However, 'energy' although the most useful term here... is still just a label for X (or Y or Z... depending)

[P3nT4gR4m]

Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine, physics, and chemistry, while the other lead to...what?

Holy war, live 24/7 on the teevee that the scientists invented!

Do not be hating on religion, without it the achievements of science would be useless 

[Vene]

Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine, physics, and chemistry, while the other lead to...what?

Holy war, live 24/7 on the teevee that the scientists invented!

Do not be hating on religion, without it the achievements of science would be useless 

And without science you monkeys would still be hitting each other with sticks.
(Also, I have no idea what I'm arguing anymore.  But I don't care.)

[Manta Obscura]

Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine, physics, and chemistry, while the other lead to...what?

Holy war, live 24/7 on the teevee that the scientists invented!

Do not be hating on religion, without it the achievements of science would be useless 

And without science we monkeys would still be hitting each other with sticks.
(Also, I have no idea what I'm arguing anymore.  But I don't care.)

But they'd be holy sticks, though, with spirits and magic in 'em and stuff.

How do you expect us to beat the evil spirits out of sick people without sticks?

[Golden Applesauce]

First off, Cainad, thank you for actually pointing out my contradiction in my original post.  Until you did so, I hadn't even noticed them.  It was indeed very poor wording on my part and my brain was working faster than my hands.

I have never said we should stop thinking along a path, on the contrary, I have stated we should continue to question everything, even what we believe as "facts".  Even things such as gravity has been redefined throughout the ages as our understanding expands and we learn new ways of measuring and calculating.  To accept something an immutable law is to never question its validity despite what new information we learn.  I will never agree to that. As for the whole zombie thing, it was obviously a failed attempt at some humor in a very delicate situation.

Second, you mean to yell me I lost 3 hours of time last night, because you choose to attack my statement instead of asking me to clarify the blatant contradictions in my text.  Part of me wants to scream, but it is being overridden by what logic I have this early in my morning that I should have read through my post a couple more times to make sure my statement was being expressed accurately.  Also, I have never stated I hated science or scientist.  I do, however, have strong issues with people who tell me that what I think is different from what they think and therefore wrong.  Did you even for once think to set your box aside and possibly look at it from a different perspective?  Agree with me or don't, honestly, I don't care, but at least consider the possibility before you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream, "It's not science, it's not science!!!"

Off-topic post to any scientifically-minded people on here:

Regarding gravity, does anyone know why objects gravitate towards each other, or do we just know, thus far, that they do so for an as-yet-undefined reason? I'm being a little vague (not to mention hijacking the thread), so I'll clarify:

For instance, we now know that cold is not caused by "cold molecules," and have identified the source of the phenomenon called "cold." Has there been any such development with gravitation, as in pinpointing what aspect of matter causes it to happen?

Just curious.

Gravity, I think, is postulated to be the affect mass has on space-time.

I find it amusing that when people start talking about how the correctness/erroneousness of scientific theories, they immediately jump to "Well, do you believe in gravity?"/"Well, except for gravity, but now EVOLUSHUN..." etc.

Because we have no fucking clue how gravity works.  Einstein proved Newton wrong.  Then Bohr proved Einstein wrong.  (I'm using the word 'prove' loosely here, and Bohr to mean "some quantum physicist who I don't know.")  Newton's theory works at low speeds and masses; Einstein works at high speeds and large masses, but fails at the quantum level.  The current best theory involves a new fundamental particle that nobody has evidence for (yet*), except that if it existed we'd have a nice universal explanation for gravity.

*See the Large Hadron Collider.

[Kai]

Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine, physics, and chemistry, while the other lead to...what?

There is a point where you say, "which model is more useful?", and then stick with it. Or maybe you don't, being one of those model agnostics.

Of course some models are more useful than others... for some things. If I want to cure cancer or map the human genome, then I'd be using the models provided through scientific processes. My point was not, "science = same as crackheaded 'We Can Has Soul?' theory", but rather, we can use X or Y or Z or energy or Soul or NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL.

X, Y and Z are useful placeholders, but without context, they're not all that useful... energy is more useful, since it is a label that gives us some information. Soul is kinda useful, but it unfortunately brings in craploads of baggage from 2000+ years of neurological and neurolinguistic hallucinations.

NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL is useful, but only if I define it as "NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL : (noun) The stuff inside humans that powers their physical processes.

However, 'energy' although the most useful term here... is still just a label for X (or Y or Z... depending)

Energy even has a tendency to bring in baggage these days, what with the new age movements and whatnot.

The problem with scientific progress is that it requires people to look at the universe in new ways that often completely contradict their old paradigms. Progression hasn't removed the meaning in the universe, its still there, lots of it, if you choose to put it there. My own spirituality is no great secret, I do find great meaning in the universe. At the same time it doesn't contradict the reality of the universe as we know it through science. There was an excuse for the idea of a soul that separates from the body at death when we didn't understand that the mind was just another biologic process, that consciousness is a remarkable emergent process but it has a physiologic basis. Now there is no excuse.

[Kai]

First off, Cainad, thank you for actually pointing out my contradiction in my original post.  Until you did so, I hadn't even noticed them.  It was indeed very poor wording on my part and my brain was working faster than my hands.

I have never said we should stop thinking along a path, on the contrary, I have stated we should continue to question everything, even what we believe as "facts".  Even things such as gravity has been redefined throughout the ages as our understanding expands and we learn new ways of measuring and calculating.  To accept something an immutable law is to never question its validity despite what new information we learn.  I will never agree to that. As for the whole zombie thing, it was obviously a failed attempt at some humor in a very delicate situation.

Second, you mean to yell me I lost 3 hours of time last night, because you choose to attack my statement instead of asking me to clarify the blatant contradictions in my text.  Part of me wants to scream, but it is being overridden by what logic I have this early in my morning that I should have read through my post a couple more times to make sure my statement was being expressed accurately.  Also, I have never stated I hated science or scientist.  I do, however, have strong issues with people who tell me that what I think is different from what they think and therefore wrong.  Did you even for once think to set your box aside and possibly look at it from a different perspective?  Agree with me or don't, honestly, I don't care, but at least consider the possibility before you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream, "It's not science, it's not science!!!"

Off-topic post to any scientifically-minded people on here:

Regarding gravity, does anyone know why objects gravitate towards each other, or do we just know, thus far, that they do so for an as-yet-undefined reason? I'm being a little vague (not to mention hijacking the thread), so I'll clarify:

For instance, we now know that cold is not caused by "cold molecules," and have identified the source of the phenomenon called "cold." Has there been any such development with gravitation, as in pinpointing what aspect of matter causes it to happen?

Just curious.

Gravity, I think, is postulated to be the affect mass has on space-time.

I find it amusing that when people start talking about how the correctness/erroneousness of scientific theories, they immediately jump to "Well, do you believe in gravity?"/"Well, except for gravity, but now EVOLUSHUN..." etc.

Because we have no fucking clue how gravity works.  Einstein proved Newton wrong.  Then Bohr proved Einstein wrong.  (I'm using the word 'prove' loosely here, and Bohr to mean "some quantum physicist who I don't know.")  Newton's theory works at low speeds and masses; Einstein works at high speeds and large masses, but fails at the quantum level.  The current best theory involves a new fundamental particle that nobody has evidence for (yet*), except that if it existed we'd have a nice universal explanation for gravity.

*See the Large Hadron Collider.

Did you note I said "I think it is postulated as"? I don't know what gravity is, however, I will trust a physicists opinions on what gravity might be more than I would trust someone who hasn't studied physics at all. You wouldn't trust a barber to be your surgeon would you? If I want information on statistics, I'll go to a statistician. If I want information on chemistry I'll go to a chemist. My particular specialty is biology and though you may not think all my answers are right more of them will be closer to the facts than someone who has no knowledge of biology.

If I want to know about physics, I'll go ask my grandfather.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

First off, Cainad, thank you for actually pointing out my contradiction in my original post.  Until you did so, I hadn't even noticed them.  It was indeed very poor wording on my part and my brain was working faster than my hands.

I have never said we should stop thinking along a path, on the contrary, I have stated we should continue to question everything, even what we believe as "facts".  Even things such as gravity has been redefined throughout the ages as our understanding expands and we learn new ways of measuring and calculating.  To accept something an immutable law is to never question its validity despite what new information we learn.  I will never agree to that. As for the whole zombie thing, it was obviously a failed attempt at some humor in a very delicate situation.

Second, you mean to yell me I lost 3 hours of time last night, because you choose to attack my statement instead of asking me to clarify the blatant contradictions in my text.  Part of me wants to scream, but it is being overridden by what logic I have this early in my morning that I should have read through my post a couple more times to make sure my statement was being expressed accurately.  Also, I have never stated I hated science or scientist.  I do, however, have strong issues with people who tell me that what I think is different from what they think and therefore wrong.  Did you even for once think to set your box aside and possibly look at it from a different perspective?  Agree with me or don't, honestly, I don't care, but at least consider the possibility before you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream, "It's not science, it's not science!!!"

Off-topic post to any scientifically-minded people on here:

Regarding gravity, does anyone know why objects gravitate towards each other, or do we just know, thus far, that they do so for an as-yet-undefined reason? I'm being a little vague (not to mention hijacking the thread), so I'll clarify:

For instance, we now know that cold is not caused by "cold molecules," and have identified the source of the phenomenon called "cold." Has there been any such development with gravitation, as in pinpointing what aspect of matter causes it to happen?

Just curious.

Gravity, I think, is postulated to be the affect mass has on space-time.

I find it amusing that when people start talking about how the correctness/erroneousness of scientific theories, they immediately jump to "Well, do you believe in gravity?"/"Well, except for gravity, but now EVOLUSHUN..." etc.

Because we have no fucking clue how gravity works.  Einstein proved Newton wrong.  Then Bohr proved Einstein wrong.  (I'm using the word 'prove' loosely here, and Bohr to mean "some quantum physicist who I don't know.")  Newton's theory works at low speeds and masses; Einstein works at high speeds and large masses, but fails at the quantum level.  The current best theory involves a new fundamental particle that nobody has evidence for (yet*), except that if it existed we'd have a nice universal explanation for gravity.

*See the Large Hadron Collider.

OSHI! Now you're just being crazy and claiming that there might be multiple ways to model a phenomena generally called 'gravity'!!! You can't do that. You have to just stick with one!!

Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine, physics, and chemistry, while the other lead to...what?

There is a point where you say, "which model is more useful?", and then stick with it. Or maybe you don't, being one of those model agnostics.

Of course some models are more useful than others... for some things. If I want to cure cancer or map the human genome, then I'd be using the models provided through scientific processes. My point was not, "science = same as crackheaded 'We Can Has Soul?' theory", but rather, we can use X or Y or Z or energy or Soul or NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL.

X, Y and Z are useful placeholders, but without context, they're not all that useful... energy is more useful, since it is a label that gives us some information. Soul is kinda useful, but it unfortunately brings in craploads of baggage from 2000+ years of neurological and neurolinguistic hallucinations.

NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL is useful, but only if I define it as "NOJUGHVCUIHOIJKJNOPKJPOJPJKPL : (noun) The stuff inside humans that powers their physical processes.

However, 'energy' although the most useful term here... is still just a label for X (or Y or Z... depending)

Energy even has a tendency to bring in baggage these days, what with the new age movements and whatnot.

The problem with scientific progress is that it requires people to look at the universe in new ways that often completely contradict their old paradigms. Progression hasn't removed the meaning in the universe, its still there, lots of it, if you choose to put it there. My own spirituality is no great secret, I do find great meaning in the universe. At the same time it doesn't contradict the reality of the universe as we know it through science. There was an excuse for the idea of a soul that separates from the body at death when we didn't understand that the mind was just another biologic process, that consciousness is a remarkable emergent process but it has a physiologic basis. Now there is no excuse.

I don't disagree with you Kai. My point was that we CAN use X for Y (Soul for Energy/Calories/other sciencey word here), but its not really doing us all that much good. And yeah, energy has all kinds of tricky issues as well. (As we discussed in the Chi thread).

[Telarus]

Thanks Rat for bringing up the Chi thread. Prana/Qi/Chi.. all the terms lead back to signifiers for 'breath/movement/that which makes a living thing live'.

This whole thread is a clusterfuck of semantic tentacle-demon anime porn concepts trading labels like masks to confuse you all.

'Energy' in science (~science: a (meta)language that deals in observer-observed repeatable phenomena) means the ability to do work, to change the environment/subjects of the environment.

But in every day parlance, words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space.

~ A ball of mass m is placed at a distance h above the end of a vertical spring. The ball is then released and compresses the spring. The elastic constant of the spring is k. What is the maximum spring deformation? Show the Kinetic Energy, the Gravitational Potential Energy, and the Elastic Potential Energy at the beginning and end of the experiment. Assume no friction.




~"She's got so much pep and energy", her co-worker exclaimed.
~"Hey Bob, you look terrible. Run out of energy?" asked Fred.

Are either two characters talking about how far a steam-engine can push a 25lb weight? No, they are discussing some-one's internal mental state as expressed through the body.

Words can signify into two 'NameSpaces', the objectified-external non-simultaneously-apprehended Universe, and the subjective internally-projected mental-emotional I-space. And here you are tossing the word 'Semantics' out like it's a fortune-cookie, merely something to ad a cheap joke to for a laugh.

SEMANTICS are the basis of all communication. Pay attention to your semantics, for the spaces between semantics are where the Fnords live. The best way we've found to model Information uses terms like Negative Entropy, and Coherence.

Which leads us to this gem:

So first off, yes, I do believe in a soul.  Now for the brain hurty part of the post.

Most religions and beliefs share that a human/talking monkey holds some sort of cosmic energy that exist through out the universe and have called it a soul.  Here is we know from various speculations out there.  Mass and Energy are one and the same only in different states.  The body requires energy to function.  When a body dies that energy is gone.  As that energy has mass, it can be concluded that when a body dies its mass decreases due to the energy becoming non-existent.  Where that energy goes? Who knows, but we know it must go somewhere as if it didn't the body would just keep moving about on its own.  Maybe that is how zombies come into existence, dead bodies that fail to discharge properly.

Or I could be lying.

What he's really asking is about the body's Coherence, it's Coordination, it's Will, it's Chi. The ability for it to coordinate enough muscles to suddenly hoist up the jury rigged scaffolding of bones and sinew and run the fuck away from me as I swing my blade at it. Whatever Coherence it has usually leaves after the body gets stabbed a few times and loses Coordination of breath and circulation.

WHERE DOES THE SIGNAL GO! he means to scream.

But no, he mistakenly grabs the term 'Energy' from the societal narrative and then runs to the Model that has claimed that term, Energy. The proponents of the Model point and laugh at him.

Strife allows a smile to flutter on her lips. Semantics.

[Kai]