Deep Sight: I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion.

To be clear, I say that the being utilizes the particles which form a body, as instruments of perception: and I deny the reverse - which would be to say that dead particles assemble over time, and through evolution, into a perceptive being.

I say that a robot cannot taste an orange, or enjoy s.ex, however it may be formed, now or in the future.

I say that cameras, even computerized cameras, do not have the faculty of sight.

I say that audio recorders cannot hear.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I therefore say that that which is not material, evidentially exists.

I task the atheist to identify, define and locate the self.

Nice. I'm no atheist but this should make for an interesting discussion.

First, let's not conflate the person and the self.

The self is the source of consciousness while the person is a vessel of experience: it is a mutable device with a historical archive.

The self never changes and it is unique, while the person undergoes constant changes as experience defines and redefines it: the person is not necessarily unique at any point in time.

The person and the self are in internal conflicts sometimes.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

Going by the above, I think plain matter can be person as long as it has an intact facility to store / archive experiences. For the same reason, pattern recognition is achievable using artificial neural networks in robots (thus, they can "see", "hear", "feel" etc, basically by comparing experiences with archived experiences)

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I agree with this.

The self is the seat of consciousness, where the person is FULLY AWARE of how it manages its own experience. I know for sure that human beings have a self. I do not know if animals have a self, but I have some reason to doubt it. Inanimate objects (including dead humans) definitely have no self, for there is nothing experientially unique about them.

On the other hand the physical brain is different from the immaterial mind because the mind is able to grasp privately held information. e.g. it is impossible to reconstruct an imagination that you have, of an object that does not exist in reality, by merely connecting your brain to some device. Those of us outside your mind cannot report the properties of this object. You'll need to let us into this private archive of your mind by describing it, then maybe a graphic artiste can render it.

Deep Sight: ^ You consider your self -(the person that you are) to be the sum of the parts of your body?

Do you have evidencd for this 'spirit' man that inhabits the body?

Mr Troll:


Do you have evidencd for this 'spirit' man that inhabits the body?

Hey there! I asked you a simple question! Answer it.

Deep Sight:

Hey there! I asked you a simple question! Answer it.

after you tell us how you came to the conclusion you stated in the very first line of your OP.

Deep Sight: I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion.

To be clear, I say that the being utilizes the particles which form a body, as instruments of perception: and I deny the reverse - which would be to say that dead particles assemble over time, and through evolution, into a perceptive being.

I say that a robot cannot taste an orange, or enjoy s.ex, however it may be formed, now or in the future.

I say that cameras, even computerized cameras, do not have the faculty of sight.

I say that audio recorders cannot hear.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I therefore say that that which is not material, evidentially exists.

I task the atheist to identify, define and locate the self.

Is there actually a self?! I very much doubt it.

The idea that the human body is inhabited by some semblance of a spirit is deceptive. To believe a person is an open book with a clear mind with its clear deliberations, intention and direct motives, is a poor understanding of human nature.

Rather man is a collective with distinct layers of personalities, coloured perceptions, a bubbling subconscious lying beneath the surface, and deep unconscious drives and motives. There was really no self, no single unitary mental state.

The senses can not be treated individually, they will collapse. Neither can man's interpretative/perceptory faculties be isolated from the senses. Nor biochemical processes with man's mental state.

Kay 17:

Is there actually a self?! I very much doubt it.

The idea that the human body is inhabited by some semblance of a spirit is deceptive. To believe a person is an open book with a clear mind with its clear deliberations, intention and direct motives, is a poor understanding of human nature.

Rather man is a collective with distinct layers of personalities, coloured perceptions, a bubbling subconscious lying beneath the surface, and deep unconscious drives and motives. There was really no self, no single unitary mental state.

The senses can not be treated individually, they will collapse. Neither can man's interpretative/perceptory faculties be isolated from the senses. Nor biochemical processes with man's mental state.

do you not see how you contradict yourself?

Joshthefirst: do you not see how you contradict yourself?

Point out the contradictions.

^^^ He placed it in bold.

Here again - >

Kay 17:

The idea that the human body is inhabited by some semblance of a spirit is deceptive.

As against:

Kay 17: Rather man is a collective with distinct layers of personalities, coloured perceptions, a bubbling subconscious lying beneath the surface

Deep Sight: I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion.

To be clear, I say that the being utilizes the particles which form a body, as instruments of perception: and I deny the reverse - which would be to say that dead particles assemble over time, and through evolution, into a perceptive being.

I say that a robot cannot taste an orange, or enjoy s.ex, however it may be formed, now or in the future.

I say that cameras, even computerized cameras, do not have the faculty of sight.

I say that audio recorders cannot hear.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I therefore say that that which is not material, evidentially exists.

I task the atheist to identify, define and locate the self.

All this is applicable to animals no?
"Experience is only open to a person". Does that mean animals are 'persons' because it is obvious they hear, see, feel and experience.
I must be slow and low on coffee because somehow I am failing to see the point of this thread.

Deep Sight:
^^^ He placed it in bold.

Here again - >



As against:

OHHH!!

It is not a contradiction, being that spirit is said to be the conscious and the real entity within the shell of the physical body. Within that theory, a spiritless person is inconceivable. And the spirit is said to be mobile.

I'm saying there are hidden personalities which are not necessarily conscious, that stir the human. For example our appreciation of sexual beauty can be traced to a disguised unconscious drive/instinct to reproduce (as in animals)

Kay 17:

OHHH!!

It is not a contradiction, being that spirit is said to be the conscious and the real entity within the shell of the physical body. Within that theory, a spiritless person is inconceivable. And the spirit is said to be mobile.

I'm saying there are hidden personalities which are not necessarily conscious, that stir the human. For example our appreciation of sexual beauty can be traced to a disguised unconscious drive/instinct to reproduce (as in animals)

happy new year in advance!

Deep Sight: I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion.

To be clear, I say that the being utilizes the particles which form a body, as instruments of perception: and I deny the reverse - which would be to say that dead particles assemble over time, and through evolution, into a perceptive being.

I say that a robot cannot taste an orange, or enjoy s.ex, however it may be formed, now or in the future.

I say that cameras, even computerized cameras, do not have the faculty of sight.

I say that audio recorders cannot hear.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I therefore say that that which is not material, evidentially exists.

I task the atheist to identify, define and locate the self.

An atheist cannot locate the self any more than he could state the breadth of infinity. The self must simply be allowed for as an by-product of human brains. A fudge factor, and one which is readily affected by modifications to the brain which results in it.

Uyi,
Where have you been?
I was beginning to fear that you might have inhaled the toxic perfume in air, knocked out, and probably undergoing a lobotomy.
Thanks to the almighty FSM that your brain is intact.

plaetton: Uyi,
Where have you been?
I was beginning to fear that you might have inhaled the toxic perfume in air, knocked out, and probably undergoing a lobotomy.
Thanks to the almighty FSM that your brain is intact.

Off Nairaland and attimes looking from the sidelines. I appreciate the concern sir. Complements of the season to you and your lived ones.

Uyi Iredia:
A [size=20pt]fudge[/size] factor, and one which is readily affected by modifications to the brain which results in it.

Na wa. Welcome back.

Uyi Iredia:

An atheist cannot locate the self any more than he could state the breadth of infinity. The self must simply be allowed for as an by-product of human brains. A fudge factor, and one which is readily affected by modifications to the brain which results in it.

please explain the bolded sir.

Deep Sight:
^^^ He placed it in bold.

Here again - >



As against:

so your spirit is really our bubbling subconscious?

Deep Sight:

Yes.

Cool. My next question is would you be able to think after you're dead?

aManFromMars:

Cool. My next question is would you be able to think after you're dead?

Yes, but not in a material way, as I would have left the material plane and my material faculties. I would apprehend things with spiritual faculties, and at a spiritual dimension of existence.

When you understand that I am a person, you cannot limit me to my body's functions in the material plane.

Redlyn:

All this is applicable to animals no?
"Experience is only open to a person". Does that mean animals are 'persons' because it is obvious they hear, see, feel and experience.
I must be slow and low on coffee because somehow I am failing to see the point of this thread.

Yes, it would mean that they are animal personalities and therewith have experience.

Deep Sight:

Yes, but not in a material way, as I would have left the material plane and my material faculties. I would apprehend things with spiritual faculties, and at a spiritual dimension of existence.

When you understand that I am a person, you cannot limit me to my body's functions in the material plane.

Musky, any more questions?