"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I think there is plenty of evidence, not to mention an absence of evidence. Maybe it started with William Harvey, maybe there was evidence before that. Certainly there was no inclination of souls/spirits prior to the concept.
When did Harvey live? I'd say the concept of souls and spirits are pretty damn old. And you are not coming forward with the evidence, just stating that it's there.
But, I think part of the problem is bordering on Pyrrhonism. "You can't know anything, not even this." reflects the ultimate end of pyrrhonic scepticism.
Actually, that quote was mentioned in the wikipedia article as an example of academic scepticism. The pyrrhonic scepticism sounds very sensible to me:
Whereas 'academic' skepticism, with as its most famous adherent Carneades, claims that "Nothing can be known, not even this", Pyrrhonian skeptics withhold any assent with regard to non-evident propositions and remain in a state of perpetual inquiry. According to them, even the statement that nothing can be known is dogmatic.
For example, Pyrrhonians might assert that a lack of proof cannot constitute disproof, and that a lack of belief is vastly different from a state of active disbelief. Rather than disbelieving psychic powers, for instance, based on the lack of evidence of such things, Pyrrhonians recognize that we cannot be certain that new evidence won't turn up in the future, and so they intentionally remain tentative and continue their inquiry. Pyrrhonians also question accepted knowledge, and view dogmatism as a disease of the mind.
As David Hume expresses, if we can't trust our senses of smell, touch, taste, sound, etc... to describe objects in the real world, or if those objects do not exist in a separate autonomous reality, and are only figments of our consciousness. Then how can we be sure that our thoughts, which we perceive by a sense, are also real? A sense of purpose, a soul, spirit or God, is put into the same dilemma. We are consequently in a state of lethargy until the very real forces of nature concludes our fate.
Interesting that you would actually use David Hume for this. Well enough that he is an empiricist, thus relying on observation, but his views in general poorly matches yours. For instance the whole first part of that long quote is a criticism of knowledge, the nature of it, and what can and cannot be known. Hume's most famous examples are that X causes Y, but only because we attribute it. We expect the future to be like the past, thus the ball on the pool table struck in a certain way is expected to roll a particular way, and seeing only white swans leads one to believe all swans are white. This only holds until the moment the ball acts otherwise, or we see a black swan, and for this not to happen, we have no guarantees. Wikipedia again:
... this is the basis for our idea not in the sense that our concept of necessary connection can be analysed into such feelings of anticipation, expectation, etc., but that we then come to see the world as structured by a certain predictability of order, and we attribute this predictability to the external objects themselves, i.e. we attribute them a causal power which makes things fall out, or occur in, the way they do; a property of necessary connection. So Hume's argument is that the mind synthesises and then projects a concept of causal power when it observes similar events to occur together repeatedly. This is an example of what the philosopher Simon Blackburn has entitled ‘projectivism’; Hume argues that we project our feeling of predictability onto the objects, much as he argues that we project our moral attitudes onto situations or objects, as “nothing is more usual than to apply to external bodies every internal sensation which they occasion.” (about necessary causal condition)
Hume thus concludes that our inductive practices have no rational foundation, for no form of reason will certify it. ... Furthermore, Hume is not saying that induction doesn't work, or doesn't reliably lead to true conclusions, or anything of that sort; rather, he argues just that it isn't spurred on by reason. The important thing to remember with Hume is that although pessimistic about the likelihood of showing that induction was a rational procedure, he thought it was a remarkably accurate—indeed, quasi-magical—ability to predict the future. (about induction)
Bottomline here, you havent presented any evidence here, soul/spirit is a very old concept, you might call me a pyrrhonian, and the use of David Hume is not quite to your advantage if it is meant to support your positions. But I do note that you have accepted that it is a philosophical question, seeing as you are quoting philosophers now.
PS: Hume's beef with pyrrhonians seem to depend more on their rejection of the "natural gift of induction", not necessarily their views and criticisms on knowledge.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
So you're saying that you think that there is another level of human awareness or being that hasn't been adequately covered by science and you're not happy with the religious explanation either?
Something like that. I think that both science and relgion are on the right track at times, but neither are able to adequately cover it.
With regard to souls do you consider that you have one yourself and if you do how are you aware of it? And if not how are you aware that you do not have one?
I dont believe I have a soul, in the traditional sense as seperate from body. That doesn't mean I dont think there's anything there, I just dont think it is really seperate from our bodies. I dont know how one could determine souls or not, so I sit on the fence on the matter.
I'm asking this question already agreeing with you that the religious explanation of souls is not one that I believe either. I guess the reason I ask is that I really believe that people have a soul or an "essence" that is intrinsic and unique to them and I have difficulty believing that it is ONLY the brain and brain function that makes a human who they are in essence. My problem being that I really cannot pinpoint why it is that I believe this. And I cannot adequately explain to myself or others how it is that I believe this.
Sounds like a common problem that.
I think alot of it goes through the brain, but postulating that it then always starts in the brain dont sit right by me either. But I do sit on the fence and keep most options open on the subject. I can't help you with the explanations, as I have none.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
No one has proof of this and like someone above has said, it is probably more of a philisophical question so we can only speculate whether a soul exists or not but personally, I just can't except than anyone could cease to exist in any form. I just can't get my head round it. I can't get my head around nothingness - if you see what I mean.
It's definetely more of a spiritual of philisophical question. It makes me think about God.
Pity I won't be around to see if anyone has any scientific evedence of this. If anyone really knows the answer to this then they are a genius and they should not be wasting their time on the message pit.
Yea, like I said, there is no "only cause", childhood is not always the cause of our beliefs and desires. With 100 trillion different synapses, 10^4 synapses per neuron and 100 billion neurons. It's improbable to pin-down exactly what the cause is from the perspective of neurobiology. But what we do know is that our brains are made up of these neurons, layed out in networks, and without them, we have no sensation, no desires and no beliefs. We can describe how they work, as was done above. Knowing how neurons and networks behave, gives us a perceptual model to work from, causes now become imaginable, and this knowledge might assist in introspecting the true causes.
Yeah, I think our posts overlapped. I was typing my previous one and by the time I'd finished you'd already posted several others.
I agree with you in that quite possibly all that we think, believe and perceive is all a function of the brain and our neural networks but if we can imagine neurobiological cause based on the perceptual model, and if we know more about the brain now than ever before why does the idea of a "soul" persist?
It cannot just be because of "learned behaviour" or the passing down of the idea from generation to generation. We debunked vampires, dragons, Santa Claus, The tooth fairy and God to a greater or lesser degree, but what is it about the soul that endures? It cannot merely be that people are uneducated or unaware of the advances in neurobiology. It cannot be that people insist on perpetuating a myth. And much and all as I like to imagine that it's collective consciousness or cellular memory even those things have not been proven or negated the existence of the soul. So why do you think that is Ahnimus? I'm just curious, to see if you have a theory on it.
As David Hume expresses, if we can't trust our senses of smell, touch, taste, sound, etc... to describe objects in the real world, or if those objects do not exist in a separate autonomous reality, and are only figments of our consciousness. Then how can we be sure that our thoughts, which we perceive by a sense, are also real? A sense of purpose, a soul, spirit or God, is put into the same dilemma. We are consequently in a state of lethargy until the very real forces of nature concludes our fate.
It was Hume's questions and philosophy that inspired Kant to pen his 'Critique of pure reason', in which he stated that the world we see around us is indeed largely - although not fully - created by our cognitive make-up. He also posited an 'unknown' - or 'noumena' - that exists beyond our sensory capacity, but which still infuses the external world around us. His philosophy in turn led to Schopenhauer's 'The world as will and representation', in which he took Kant's philosophy a step further and integrated it with many of the mystical aspects of Eastern philosophy.
If you really want to understand Hume, then read Kant.
As David Hume expresses, if we can't trust our senses of smell, touch, taste, sound, etc... to describe objects in the real world, or if those objects do not exist in a separate autonomous reality, and are only figments of our consciousness. Then how can we be sure that our thoughts, which we perceive by a sense, are also real? A sense of purpose, a soul, spirit or God, is put into the same dilemma. We are consequently in a state of lethargy until the very real forces of nature concludes our fate.
Our basic senses do not rely on "trust' so I guess it can be argued that to describe objects in the real world is very much dependent on the person describing the object. Including Einstein.
There is no dilemma in being oneself. The dilemma is of 1)creativity through the spoken or written word (education), and 2) the crisis of senses.
Our basic senses do not rely on "trust' so I guess it can be argued that to describe objects in the real world is very much dependent on the person describing the object. Including Einstein.
There is no dilemma in being oneself. The dilemma is of 1)creativity through the spoken or written word (education), and 2) the crisis of senses.
Comments
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Actually, that quote was mentioned in the wikipedia article as an example of academic scepticism. The pyrrhonic scepticism sounds very sensible to me: Interesting that you would actually use David Hume for this. Well enough that he is an empiricist, thus relying on observation, but his views in general poorly matches yours. For instance the whole first part of that long quote is a criticism of knowledge, the nature of it, and what can and cannot be known. Hume's most famous examples are that X causes Y, but only because we attribute it. We expect the future to be like the past, thus the ball on the pool table struck in a certain way is expected to roll a particular way, and seeing only white swans leads one to believe all swans are white. This only holds until the moment the ball acts otherwise, or we see a black swan, and for this not to happen, we have no guarantees. Wikipedia again:
Bottomline here, you havent presented any evidence here, soul/spirit is a very old concept, you might call me a pyrrhonian, and the use of David Hume is not quite to your advantage if it is meant to support your positions. But I do note that you have accepted that it is a philosophical question, seeing as you are quoting philosophers now.
PS: Hume's beef with pyrrhonians seem to depend more on their rejection of the "natural gift of induction", not necessarily their views and criticisms on knowledge.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
describe it to me then.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think alot of it goes through the brain, but postulating that it then always starts in the brain dont sit right by me either. But I do sit on the fence and keep most options open on the subject. I can't help you with the explanations, as I have none.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
It's definetely more of a spiritual of philisophical question. It makes me think about God.
Pity I won't be around to see if anyone has any scientific evedence of this. If anyone really knows the answer to this then they are a genius and they should not be wasting their time on the message pit.
Yeah, I think our posts overlapped. I was typing my previous one and by the time I'd finished you'd already posted several others.
I agree with you in that quite possibly all that we think, believe and perceive is all a function of the brain and our neural networks but if we can imagine neurobiological cause based on the perceptual model, and if we know more about the brain now than ever before why does the idea of a "soul" persist?
It cannot just be because of "learned behaviour" or the passing down of the idea from generation to generation. We debunked vampires, dragons, Santa Claus, The tooth fairy and God to a greater or lesser degree, but what is it about the soul that endures? It cannot merely be that people are uneducated or unaware of the advances in neurobiology. It cannot be that people insist on perpetuating a myth. And much and all as I like to imagine that it's collective consciousness or cellular memory even those things have not been proven or negated the existence of the soul. So why do you think that is Ahnimus? I'm just curious, to see if you have a theory on it.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
It was Hume's questions and philosophy that inspired Kant to pen his 'Critique of pure reason', in which he stated that the world we see around us is indeed largely - although not fully - created by our cognitive make-up. He also posited an 'unknown' - or 'noumena' - that exists beyond our sensory capacity, but which still infuses the external world around us. His philosophy in turn led to Schopenhauer's 'The world as will and representation', in which he took Kant's philosophy a step further and integrated it with many of the mystical aspects of Eastern philosophy.
If you really want to understand Hume, then read Kant.
Our basic senses do not rely on "trust' so I guess it can be argued that to describe objects in the real world is very much dependent on the person describing the object. Including Einstein.
There is no dilemma in being oneself. The dilemma is of 1)creativity through the spoken or written word (education), and 2) the crisis of senses.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Dude, you're an uneducated illiterate.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
You're probably right. I read these things, and see these impressive replies and suggestions...and then i mispell a word.
I meant, "crises of senses."
not "crisis."
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.