23 Jan 2009, 12:55 pm
starvingartist wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
.
p.s. - i'm pretty sure einstein believed in souls. guess he was delusional too
p.s. - i'm pretty sure einstein believed in souls. guess he was delusional too
I am sure Einstein believed in -his- soul.
ruveyn
your arguments sound a lot like "whatev" to me.
What is "whatev"?
ruveyn
23 Jan 2009, 1:26 pm
Sand wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
Naturally, an MRI won't be able to detect abtract things like mind or soul. You are one funny Hebrew, ruveyn. 
I share the opinion of Demokritos and Lukippus. All that is, are atoms moving in the void. If mind and soul exist they should be objectively detectable.
Thus far no one has ever perceived a mind in any one's skull but his own. Which suggests that the notion of mind is delusional. Also no one has ever objectively detected/observed a soul (whatever that is).
On the other hand I can observer your brain in action and you can observe my brain in action. Conclusion: Brains exist.
ruveyn
one more thing though.....can't remember who first came up with idea of atoms, but i bet a lot of people in his time thought he was delusional because i'm pretty sure it was before they had electron microscopes and he couldn't show them to anybody. good thing he didn't listen to those people
just because i don't have a device that can 'measure' or quantify my soul for you, DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT EXIST. just means we haven't been able to demonstrate it scientifically yet. and if you think we can measure everything there is to measure in the universe, you are either incredibly arrogant or incredibly foolish. or both.p.s. - i'm pretty sure einstein believed in souls. guess he was delusional too
In Berlin in February 1921 Einstein received from a woman in Vienna a letter imploring him to tell her if he had formed an opinion as to whether the soul exists and with it personal, individual development after death. There were other questions of a similar sort. On 5 February 1921 Einstein answered at some length. Here in part is what he said:
The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
this is specifically about the afterlife, not the existence of souls in general.
and he sure talked about god a lot for someone who doesn't believe in souls.
23 Jan 2009, 1:27 pm
ruveyn wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
.
p.s. - i'm pretty sure einstein believed in souls. guess he was delusional too
p.s. - i'm pretty sure einstein believed in souls. guess he was delusional too
I am sure Einstein believed in -his- soul.
ruveyn
your arguments sound a lot like "whatev" to me.
What is "whatev"?
ruveyn
whatever
23 Jan 2009, 1:29 pm
starvingartist wrote:
Sand wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
Naturally, an MRI won't be able to detect abtract things like mind or soul. You are one funny Hebrew, ruveyn.
I share the opinion of Demokritos and Lukippus. All that is, are atoms moving in the void. If mind and soul exist they should be objectively detectable.
Thus far no one has ever perceived a mind in any one's skull but his own. Which suggests that the notion of mind is delusional. Also no one has ever objectively detected/observed a soul (whatever that is).
On the other hand I can observer your brain in action and you can observe my brain in action. Conclusion: Brains exist.
ruveyn
one more thing though.....can't remember who first came up with idea of atoms, but i bet a lot of people in his time thought he was delusional because i'm pretty sure it was before they had electron microscopes and he couldn't show them to anybody. good thing he didn't listen to those people
just because i don't have a device that can 'measure' or quantify my soul for you, DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT EXIST. just means we haven't been able to demonstrate it scientifically yet. and if you think we can measure everything there is to measure in the universe, you are either incredibly arrogant or incredibly foolish. or both.p.s. - i'm pretty sure einstein believed in souls. guess he was delusional too
In Berlin in February 1921 Einstein received from a woman in Vienna a letter imploring him to tell her if he had formed an opinion as to whether the soul exists and with it personal, individual development after death. There were other questions of a similar sort. On 5 February 1921 Einstein answered at some length. Here in part is what he said:
The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
this is specifically about the afterlife, not the existence of souls in general.
and he sure talked about god a lot for someone who doesn't believe in souls.
I wonder how specific he can get to satisfy you. I won't even try to persuade you.
23 Jan 2009, 1:33 pm
Sand wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
Sand wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
Naturally, an MRI won't be able to detect abtract things like mind or soul. You are one funny Hebrew, ruveyn.
I share the opinion of Demokritos and Lukippus. All that is, are atoms moving in the void. If mind and soul exist they should be objectively detectable.
Thus far no one has ever perceived a mind in any one's skull but his own. Which suggests that the notion of mind is delusional. Also no one has ever objectively detected/observed a soul (whatever that is).
On the other hand I can observer your brain in action and you can observe my brain in action. Conclusion: Brains exist.
ruveyn
one more thing though.....can't remember who first came up with idea of atoms, but i bet a lot of people in his time thought he was delusional because i'm pretty sure it was before they had electron microscopes and he couldn't show them to anybody. good thing he didn't listen to those people
just because i don't have a device that can 'measure' or quantify my soul for you, DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT EXIST. just means we haven't been able to demonstrate it scientifically yet. and if you think we can measure everything there is to measure in the universe, you are either incredibly arrogant or incredibly foolish. or both.p.s. - i'm pretty sure einstein believed in souls. guess he was delusional too
In Berlin in February 1921 Einstein received from a woman in Vienna a letter imploring him to tell her if he had formed an opinion as to whether the soul exists and with it personal, individual development after death. There were other questions of a similar sort. On 5 February 1921 Einstein answered at some length. Here in part is what he said:
The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
this is specifically about the afterlife, not the existence of souls in general.
and he sure talked about god a lot for someone who doesn't believe in souls.
I wonder how specific he can get to satisfy you. I won't even try to persuade you.
well it would probably help your argument if you used quotes that applied. he is talking about the idea of a soul existing without a body being devoid of meaning because after death there is no sensory information coming from the body to influence any awareness or sensation in a person's consciousness. it says nothing about whether he believes when a person is alive they possess some sort of soul, however you want to define soul. ie there could perhaps be something called a soul but only exists when a person is alive and is inextricably linked to the live body and the conscious mind.
23 Jan 2009, 1:39 pm
23 Jan 2009, 1:43 pm
Quote:
They also teach alcoholism is a disease, but it really is not.
Alcoholism is indeed a disease. Addiction is a disease, dunderhead!
23 Jan 2009, 2:34 pm
23 Jan 2009, 2:55 pm
ruveyn wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
at least this is something that could be measured, and subsequently studied....there could be patterns there that we don't understand yet. who knows? not me, i don't pretend to be god and know absolute truths.
Most of our EM energy is heat generated by the body's metabolism. So our EM is overwhelmingly in the infra-red frequency range.
The electrical activity of the brain produces very little power. Which is why electrodes must be attached to the skin of the skull to get any readings. As transmitters we are duds.
ruveyn
i'm sorry, but you're never going to convince me that i don't have a soul. i guess that makes me an ignorant savage....but a happy one
23 Jan 2009, 3:18 pm
starvingartist wrote:
i'm sorry, but you're never going to convince me that i don't have a soul. i guess that makes me an ignorant savage....but a happy one
I believe the issue here is about defining Soul, which have different connotations and abstraction.
I tend to relate the word soul with mind, including emotion and creativity, in that sense, if you have a mind, you have a soul, following this definition:
britannica.com wrote:
the immaterial aspect or essence of a human being, that which confers individuality and humanity, often considered to be synonymous with the mind or the self.
wikipedia wrote:
the soul is the immaterial part of a person. It is usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality,.....
Last edited by greenblue on 23 Jan 2009, 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
23 Jan 2009, 3:19 pm
greenblue wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
i'm sorry, but you're never going to convince me that i don't have a soul. i guess that makes me an ignorant savage....but a happy one
I believe the issue here is about defining Soul, which have different connotations.
I tend to relate the word soul with mind, including emotion and creativity, in that sense, if you have a mind, you have a soul, following this definition:
britannica.com wrote:
the immaterial aspect or essence of a human being, that which confers individuality and humanity, often considered to be synonymous with the mind or the self.
wikipedia wrote:
the soul is the immaterial part of a person. It is usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality,.....
well according to several people on this thread there is no such thing as a mind either.
23 Jan 2009, 3:24 pm
i find it interesting that there are so many who put all their faith in science and view those with religious/spiritual beliefs as fanatics, or rather as hopelessly biased (same thing, really).....when it seems to me the religion of science has a few fanatics (purists) of it's own
why is it impossible for so many to have faith in both, to have a more all-encompassing, inclusive and varied way of looking at the world and themselves? ....it makes me very sad 
.
23 Jan 2009, 3:53 pm
starvingartist wrote:
i find it interesting that there are so many who put all their faith in science and view those with religious/spiritual beliefs as fanatics, or rather as hopelessly biased (same thing, really).....when it seems to me the religion of science has a few fanatics (purists) of it's own
why is it impossible for so many to have faith in both, to have a more all-encompassing, inclusive and varied way of looking at the world and themselves? ....it makes me very sad .
why is it impossible for so many to have faith in both, to have a more all-encompassing, inclusive and varied way of looking at the world and themselves? ....it makes me very sad
.Science is not a faith, it requires validation. All your posts indicate you have no capability to comprehend the difference and you will believe what you believe in spite of any indications that there is very little basis for your convictions. Obviously the basis for your convictions have no rational foundations so why should I bother to post further on the subject?
23 Jan 2009, 3:58 pm
Sand wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
i find it interesting that there are so many who put all their faith in science and view those with religious/spiritual beliefs as fanatics, or rather as hopelessly biased (same thing, really).....when it seems to me the religion of science has a few fanatics (purists) of it's own
why is it impossible for so many to have faith in both, to have a more all-encompassing, inclusive and varied way of looking at the world and themselves? ....it makes me very sad .
why is it impossible for so many to have faith in both, to have a more all-encompassing, inclusive and varied way of looking at the world and themselves? ....it makes me very sad
.Science is not a faith, it requires validation. All your posts indicate you have no capability to comprehend the difference and you will believe what you believe in spite of any indications that there is very little basis for your convictions. Obviously the basis for your convictions have no rational foundations so why should I bother to post further on the subject?
well if some stranger on the internet tells me i have no capability of understanding then i guess i don't. perhaps i should listen to random strangers more often so they can tell me how to feel about myself and my soul in a more informed and less ignorant and obviously foolish manner.
btw, i went to university to become a scientist....a zoologist, more specifically. they accepted me without a high school diploma because of my grades. man i sure am incapable of understanding so much
23 Jan 2009, 4:01 pm
Sand wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
i find it interesting that there are so many who put all their faith in science and view those with religious/spiritual beliefs as fanatics, or rather as hopelessly biased (same thing, really).....when it seems to me the religion of science has a few fanatics (purists) of it's own
why is it impossible for so many to have faith in both, to have a more all-encompassing, inclusive and varied way of looking at the world and themselves? ....it makes me very sad .
why is it impossible for so many to have faith in both, to have a more all-encompassing, inclusive and varied way of looking at the world and themselves? ....it makes me very sad
.Science is not a faith, it requires validation. All your posts indicate you have no capability to comprehend the difference and you will believe what you believe in spite of any indications that there is very little basis for your convictions. Obviously the basis for your convictions have no rational foundations so why should I bother to post further on the subject?
btw, i have a psychotic disorder, and rationality is highly overrated. believe one who's been on both sides of that coin and knows better than you do on that score. or are you psychotic too?
23 Jan 2009, 4:02 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| ali g on science |
30 Dec 2024, 1:38 am |
| Work party |
04 Jan 2025, 11:43 pm |
| WP Christmas Party 2024 |
31 Dec 2024, 1:12 am |
