₦airaland Forum

TenQ:
Don't shut down: THINK!

are you thinking?

DeepSight:
Especially the program for something like the human brain. To suggest so has been likened to thinking that an orangutan playing with a laptop could produce the complete works of Shakespeare, once given sufficient time!

Writing a dictionary or a book is even out of it. Can such a permutation write:
"Hello World!"

There is an underlying rule guiding any program no matter how simple are Syntax, Reserved words, Identifiers etc
On the basis of this, "Hello World" makes sense!

TenQ:
To answer any question of a complex nature, you move from known to unknown.

The question was knowing which position is correct from
1. The intangible Soul/Mind/Spirit as the fundamental source of living activities
OR
2. That the tangible organs/genes/brain/chemistry as the fundamental source of living activities

What are the knowns that can be used to comprehend or explain what our observations?

A good example of the known is a Computer/AI humanoid robot. It is entirely built up of physical tangible matter BUT is controlled by an intangible SOFTWARE!

A logical question to test the above hypothesis of similarity is to ask the question:
Is it possible to have a computer/AI humanoid robot that is devoid of a software?

The answer for now is NO!

Meaning that the hypothesis makes sense UNTIL a better one is put forward.

Do you have a better/contrary hypothesis?

It seems you don't understand the question. The mind and the body are a singular unit which much like an autonomous vehicle is a working combination of intangible and tangible, you on the other hand believe that mind is an aspect of soul/spirit that drives the body like a human driven vehicle. My question is how can we tell which position is correct.

The facts on ground do not support the view that some spirit/soul is driving the body. They have consistent point to the fact the mind and the body are a functional unit not a duality.

LordReed:
It seems you don't understand the question. The mind and the body are a singular unit which much like an autonomous vehicle is a working combination of intangible and tangible, you on the other hand believe that mind is an aspect of soul/spirit that drives the body like a human driven vehicle. My question is how can we tell which position is correct.

The facts on ground do not support the view that some spirit/soul is driving the body. They have consistent point to the fact the mind and the body are a functional unit not a duality.

Okay, I see where the misunderstanding is coming from.

What is the Soul?
The Soul is the self/personal/internal IDENTITY of a person: the source of our WILL, INTELLECT and EMOTION! These three effects of the Soul is called the MIND! Someone like me sees the soul as the Software of the Body (hardware). The software thus must interact with the hardware of the brain in other to control the body.

From the explanation above, I should ask you the question of what you consider as the MIND?
Is it just the physical brain?

HardMirror:
are you thinking?

I should ask you that!

LordReed:
Nobody is making the argument that because it exists in nature that humans have to do it so I dunno why you keep mentioning that.

If something exists in nature it makes it natural, it's in the very meaning of the word. Even if you call it an aberration it is still natural. Fortunately, it doesn't matter what you call it, society is waking up to the fact that being is not tied to ancient fables.

Then one day cannibalism will be legal. Bestiality will also be encouraged. They are relics of the ancient fables! LOL!!

DeepSight:
Perhaps you need to find a simpler way of communicating your thoughts to me because I mean it when I say I am mostly at an complete loss as to the things you say.

You are funny. "Simpler way of communicating your thoughts", like you have done below, right? But forgive me. My english school is so limited.

DeepSight:
Honestly you deeply befuddle me. I don't know what you mean here. For what it's worth, what I mean by "consistency" there is simpy cogency against known factors and our collective as well as subjective experiences of the nature of our lives and being.

You are beffudled, which is funny since you are supposed to deeply see. Good too, since you must look beyond the mere material to be unbeffudled, which should be easy since you are not one to focus only on the material, lets assume.

Read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism?wprov=sfla1 and tell me if any human you know has "consistency", or "simpy cogency", or "subjective experiences" of the relevant "known factors" not to talk of be against them, and then tell me where they acquire this so called "collective".

I'd say you threw the kitchen sink and hoped it stick because you were not "simpler way of communicating your thoughts" one tiny bit there, DeepSight. I in fact accuse you of beffudling yourself!

TenQ:
I should ask you that!

lol

LordReed:
It seems you don't understand the question. The mind and the body are a singular unit which much like an autonomous vehicle is a working combination of intangible and tangible, you on the other hand believe that mind is an aspect of soul/spirit that drives the body like a human driven vehicle. My question is how can we tell which position is correct.

The facts on ground do not support the view that some spirit/soul is driving the body. They have consistent point to the fact the mind and the body are a functional unit not a duality.

Perhaps some knowledge of the history of the topic might help.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/

TenQ:
Then one day cannibalism will be legal. Bestiality will also be encouraged. They are relics of the ancient fables! LOL!!

Where did I mention those?

TenQ:
What is the Soul?
The Soul is the self/personal/internal IDENTITY of a person: the source of our WILL, INTELLECT and EMOTION! These three effects of the Soul is called the MIND! Someone like me sees the soul as the Software of the Body (hardware).

I love the fact that you recognise that others might not see like you see. I, for instance, do not see souls at all, never have, though I do witness the functioning of minds in their respective bodies like their software propelling their physical hardware.

To me, TenQ's soul is not TenQ (self/personal/internal IDENTITY), nor is your soul responsible for the development of your mind (software).

What effects the mind is how well the self/personal/internal IDENTITY of TenQ bothered to propel TenQ to develop TenQ's "WILL, INTELLECT and EMOTION" and that learning is what forms TenQ's self/personal/internal IDENTITY identity, as seen especially by those who do not merely rely on the material hardware they see nor on their assumption of their understanding of softwares alone but on the produced fruit of the being too.

A different seeing I suppose, though chicken and eggy.

TenQ:
To answer any question of a complex nature, you move from known to unknown.

The question was knowing which position is correct from
1. The intangible Soul/Mind/Spirit as the fundamental source of living activities
OR
2. That the tangible organs/genes/brain/chemistry as the fundamental source of living activities

What are the knowns that can be used to comprehend or explain what our observations?

A good example of the known is a Computer/AI humanoid robot. It is entirely built up of physical tangible matter BUT is controlled by an intangible SOFTWARE!

A logical question to test the above hypothesis of similarity is to ask the question:
Is it possible to have a computer/AI humanoid robot that is devoid of a software?

The answer for now is NO!

Meaning that the hypothesis makes sense UNTIL a better one is put forward.

Do you have a better/contrary hypothesis?

So between option 1and 2, you choose the most unsupportable and unfounded option. The brain is responsible for everything you people ever attribute to the mythological soul. You have no soul.
The mind itself is nothing but a product of arrangement and interaction of matter. And it doesn’t matter how much you believe otherwise. I am yet to see a person devoid of a living and functional brain interacting with people as his “soul” expresses mind and emotion. Mind, emotion, etc are functions of the brain and only the superstitious or indoctrinated continue to say otherwise. Damage to the brain alters conciousness, emotions, intellect, will etc but y’all continue to pretend that it is something called a soul.

Not to appeal to authority, but these two put it succinctly.

This is what Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the structure of DNA, called “The Astonishing Hypothesis.” In Crick’s words, “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal iden­tity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

Harvard psychologist Joshua Greene summarizes the situation as follows:
Most people are dualists. Intuitively, we think of ourselves not as physical devices, but as immaterial minds or souls housed in physical bodies. Most experimental psychologists and neuroscientists disagree, at least officially. The modern science of mind proceeds on the assumption that the mind is simply what the brain does. We don’t talk much about this, however. We scientists take the mind’s physical basis for granted. Among the general public, it’s a touchy subject.


PS: the software is not intangible. Instruction written on a material surface is not intangible.

LordReed:
Where did I mention those?

Must you mention ALL the available relics of ancient fables?

The two mentioned are also part of those ancient fables!

budaatum:
You are funny. "Simpler way of communicating your thoughts", like you have done below, right? But forgive me. My english school is so limited.


You are beffudled, which is funny since you are supposed to deeply see. Good too, since you must look beyond the mere material to be unbeffudled, which should be easy since you are not one to focus only on the material, lets assume.

Read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism?wprov=sfla1 and tell me if any human you know has "consistency", or "simpy cogency", or "subjective experiences" of the relevant "known factors" not to talk of be against them, and then tell me where they acquire this so called "collective".

I'd say you threw the kitchen sink and hoped it stick because you were not "simpler way of communicating your thoughts" one tiny bit there, DeepSight. I in fact accuse you of beffudling yourself!

Very well then. Alas we must leave it at that.

DeepSight:
Very well then. Alas we must leave it at that.

You might leave it at that deepsight, but I will continue delving be assured, after all we just might have different subjective understandings and I might learn [from] your's.

TenQ:
Must you mention ALL the available relics of ancient fables?

The two mentioned are also part of those ancient fables!

I specifically pointed out same sex attraction but instead of focusing on that you went with what I didn't mention.

budaatum:
You might leave it at that deepsight, but I will continue delving be assured, after all we just might have different subjective understandings and I might learn [from] your's.

Ofcourse, and I from yours.

killyaselfie:
The mind itself is nothing but a product of arrangement and interaction of matter. And it doesn’t matter how much you believe otherwise..

This is what Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the structure of DNA, called “The Astonishing Hypothesis.” In Crick’s words, “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal iden­tity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

This can not possibly be true!

If it were true, all our minds would work the same way and we'd all reason the same way, except for the fact that while our minds might be a product of how we individually arranged our interaction with matter which differs immensely, our behavior can therefore not just be a "vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" which we all pretty much have in common.

Just as we don't all have the same hardware (I'm missing a sixpack), so have we not all developed our minds to work the same way which would be the case if minds were "vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules", is my unauthorised point.

killyaselfie:
Mind, emotion, etc are functions of the brain and only the superstitious or indoctrinated continue to say otherwise.

I would have liked to invite you to consider that those who have a different view are not necessarily superstitious or indoctrinated. I would have liked to urge you to consider also that there rests a certain inflexibility of thought in the disposition which dismisses all contrary views in a matter like this, as superstitious.

For one neednt be either superstitious or indoctrinated to believe that there is an immaterial aspect of being which rests at the root of personal consciousness and identity.

However I say "I would have liked to" because I am conscious that that is nothing but a pipe dream on my part: namely that you would never consider any of these thoughts as worthy of anything at all.

DeepSight:
I would have liked to invite you to consider that those who have a different view are not necessarily superstitious or indoctrinated. I would have liked to urge you to consider also that there rests a certain inflexibility of thought in the disposition which dismisses all contrary views in a matter like this, as superstitious.

For one neednt be either superstitious or indoctrinated to believe that there is an immaterial aspect of being which rests at the root of personal consciousness and identity.

However I say "I would have liked to" because I am conscious that that is nothing but a pipe dream on my part: namely that you would never consider any of these thoughts as worthy of anything at all.

I would consider anything that isn’t a subjective claim. Not saying subjective claims are necessarily false, but there is no criteria where you can prove or I can disprove “ immaterial aspect of being which rests at the root of personal consciousness and identity”. The claim becomes irredeemable when it’s assertions can be explained without appeal to credulity or obscurantism.

Yes, you have to be superstitious or indoctrinated to believe in souls.

killyaselfie:
I would consider anything that isn’t a subjective claim.

Well, one thing I acknowledged at the outset is that significant aspects of this matter rest in the experiential (which is subjective) and thus may be wholly impossible to debate.

Yes, you have to be superstitious or indoctrinated to believe in souls.

Religiously indoctrinated?

Also what about the ancient philosophers who believed in this thing called a soul. Would you regard them as superstitious as well? Because they based their beliefs in that regard on what they considered to be reason.

budaatum:
This can not possibly be true!

If it were true, all our minds would work the same way and we'd all reason the same way, except for the fact that while our minds might be a product of how we individually arranged our interaction with matter which differs immensely, our behavior can therefore not just be a "vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" which we all pretty much have in common.

Just as we don't all have the same hardware (I'm missing a sixpack), so have we not all developed our minds to work the same way which would be the case if minds were "vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules", is my unauthorised point.

Regardless of if the mind “works the same way”, all minds are still made up of functional brains. The fact that humans are differentiated doesn’t mean that they are not fundamentally human. Some express a lot of melanin, some don’t. Some are short, some are tall etc, but humans they are.

Produce a mind that doesn’t involve a vast assembly of cells and their associated molecules.

DeepSight:
Well, one thing I acknowledged at the outset is that significant aspects of this matter rest in the experiential (which is subjective) and thus may be wholly impossible to debate.



Religiously indoctrinated?

Also what about the ancient philosophers who believed in this thing called a soul. Would you regard them as superstitious as well? Because they based their beliefs in that regard on what they considered to be reason.

Ancient philosophers did not have the luxury of our scientific tools nor were they infallible. Their reason was handicapped by their lack of sufficient technology but scientific method/knowledge is what resulted from their dedication to reason. So, if we are to venerate reason, we should build on what they left and not hold on to their “enlightened ignorance”.

I like Plato’s Republic and have learned from it but that doesn’t mean I accept his concept of “soul”.

Also, the “ancient” philosophers considered themselves modern during their times and they were influenced by more ancient philosophers. If you don’t adopt the bumptiously ignorant view of Eurocentrism, the philosophers of “Ancient Greece” obviously adopted and developed older philosophies of the lands south and east of the Greek isles. So they were in a way also indoctrinated.

If we go back further in time, then a soul becomes the animating force in nature, which is just an idea devoid of support but which served to explain an aspect of the natural world satisfactorily.

killyaselfie:
Ancient philosophers did not have the luxury of our scientific tools nor were they infallible. Their reason was handicapped by their lack of sufficient technology but scientific method/knowledge is what resulted from their dedication to reason. So, if we are to venerate reason, we should build on what they left and not hold on to their “enlightened ignorance”.

I like Plato’s Republic and have learned from it but that doesn’t mean I accept his concept of “soul”.

Do you accept philosophical reasoning as a tool for approaching the nature of reality as we know it: or is this inquiry the preserve of science in your worldview?

DeepSight:
Do you accept philosophical reasoning as a tool for approaching the nature of reality as we know it: or is this inquiry the preserve of science in your worldview?

Philosophical reasoning helps develop ideas but you still need the scientific method to understand the nature of reality.

killyaselfie:
Philosophical reasoning helps develop ideas but you still need the scientific method to understand the nature of reality.

Okay, given that you somewhat accept to some extent the usefulness of philosophical reasoning, maybe we should try a little of it and see where it might lead. However I must first ask if if you believe that science is capable of addressing everything about reality. I ask this because my impression is that science deals with the physical, and I believe that there is more to reality than the physical. And I am sure that I can prove this is a few short lines.

DeepSight:
Okay, given that you somewhat accept to some extent the usefulness of philosophical reasoning, maybe we should try a little of it and see where it might lead. However I must first ask if if you believe that science is capable of addressing everything about reality. I ask this because my impression is that science deals with the physical, and I believe that there is more to reality than the physical. And I am sure that I can prove this is a few short lines.

State the criteria for proving “there’s more to reality than the physical” and then go ahead and prove it.

killyaselfie:
State the criteria for proving the metaphysical and then go ahead and prove it.

Oh this will simply be logic and reason. If you are looking for an equation such as E = MC² well that's not not what I will be doing. As for proving it I should simply point out that there are many things that one could not reasonably consider physical, but which are nonetheless very real. Thoughts would be an example. Time would be another example.

DeepSight:
Oh this will simply be logic and reason. If you are looking for an equation such as E = MC² well that's not not what I will be doing. As for proving it I should simply point out that there are many things that one could not reasonably consider physical, but which are nonetheless very real. Thoughts would be an example. Time would be another example.

Thoughts are products of material objects as in they are functions of a brain. Time is also product of the changes in physical constituents of the world.

Show me a thought without matter generating it or time independent of the physical world.

budaatum:
I love the fact that you recognise that others might not see like you see. I, for instance, do not see souls at all, never have, though I do witness the functioning of minds in their respective bodies like their software propelling their physical hardware.

To me, TenQ's soul is not TenQ (self/personal/internal IDENTITY), nor is your soul responsible for the development of your mind (software).

What effects the mind is how well the self/personal/internal IDENTITY of TenQ bothered to propel TenQ to develop TenQ's "WILL, INTELLECT and EMOTION" and that learning is what forms TenQ's self/personal/internal IDENTITY identity, as seen especially by those who do not merely rely on the material hardware they see nor on their assumption of their understanding of softwares alone but on the produced fruit of the being too.

A different seeing I suppose, though chicken and eggy.

But I can prove that Buda is truly the person Buda calls "I", "ME" or "MY SELF"!
Let's do a thought experiment:
Let's assume you slept only to wake up from sleep 4 months after. Now, unknown to you, someone has performed a reconstruction plastic surgery on you that you look perfectly And exactly like Vice President Oshinbajo.

Would you be confused about your true identity?
Would you not ask the question: who did this to ME?
Who then is the me you refer to?
Of cause, the "me" cannot be your brain!
The "me" in this case is the unseen you inside your body. It is the one who feels all the emotions and makes all the decisions you make.

Just as your Physical Identity is your BODY, your Soul is your Internal/Personal Identity.

Now, just as you feed your body with food and other nutrition for it to grow well, you also feed your soul but this time with Knowledge and Experience! A soul could have a stunted growth or be deformed or even be sick based on the kind of knowledge and experience you feed it with. Sometimes, the hardware (brain) could be compromised either physically or chemically to cause a malfunction in the interface between the soul and the brain.

Just as the Software interfaces with the CPU and Memory, so the soul interfaces with the brain!

killyaselfie:
Thoughts are products of material objects as in they are functions of a brain. Time is also product of the changes in physical constituents of the world.

Show me a thought without matter generating it or time independent of the physical world.

Oh but to say that a thing is the product of matter is still different from the thing being matter, dont you agree? So in other words, even if we agree that thoughts are the products of material objects, would you then assert that since this is the case, thoughts are in fact material objects?

DeepSight:
Oh but to say that a thing is the product of matter is still different from the thing being matter, dont you agree? So in other words, even if we agree that thoughts are the products of material objects, would you then assert that since this is the case, thoughts are in fact material objects?

No, thoughts are emergent properties of material objects to wit neurons exchanging electrical and chemical information, which are themselves descriptions of material interactions between objects.

For your proof to be valid, you have to present an isolated thought in the physical world independent of a brain or tell me how I can observe it in the “more to reality physical world”
If you show me a picture, interactions between neurons could produce a thought that is verbalized as “good” but there is no disembodied thought known as “good”.