Thoughts on Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
222

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

Notice how this approach leaves certain questions inaccessible:

-what is the mind?
-what is the soul?
-is the soul immortal?

And countless others. Hence the lack of satisfaction with the type of questions/answers addressed by empirical science.

[/quote]

Wait a sec.

You’re asking the wrong questions.

You should be asking, what good reason do I have to believe souls exist? Until you have find physical evidence to support this claim the rational response would be to dismiss the notion of the soul completely.

As for the mind it’s a product of the brain. No mind exists in absence of a physical brain. Do you have any evidence to support the claim the mind can exist in absence of a physical brain?

I think you’re simply selling science short.

[/quote]

You do realize your claims above are nothing more than your personal opinions, right? As such you’re certainly entitled to them but you hold no intellectual high ground in doing so.[/quote]

I haven’t seen any physical evidence for a soul, have you?

Have you seen any evidence of a mind existing outside of a physical brain?

223

I’m working under the premise that Chillain cares whether his beliefs are true or not.

If you care about the truth, you need an accurate method of discerning the truth. Science and the scientific method is the best method to discerning the truth.

225

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

Notice how this approach leaves certain questions inaccessible:

-what is the mind?
-what is the soul?
-is the soul immortal?

And countless others. Hence the lack of satisfaction with the type of questions/answers addressed by empirical science.

[/quote]

Wait a sec.

You’re asking the wrong questions.

You should be asking, what good reason do I have to believe souls exist? Until you have find physical evidence to support this claim the rational response would be to dismiss the notion of the soul completely.

As for the mind it’s a product of the brain. No mind exists in absence of a physical brain. Do you have any evidence to support the claim the mind can exist in absence of a physical brain?

I think you’re simply selling science short.

[/quote]

You do realize your claims above are nothing more than your personal opinions, right? As such you’re certainly entitled to them but you hold no intellectual high ground in doing so.[/quote]

I haven’t seen any physical evidence for a soul, have you?

Have you seen any evidence of a mind existing outside of a physical brain?[/quote]

So you’re gonna hang in there and insist you’re the big dog in this fight? All others must bow to your supreme intellect because you’re screaming “BUT SCIENCE…BUT SCIENCE…BUT SCIENCE IS MY ALMIGHTY! MY ALMIGHTY STANDS WITH ME! I CANNOT BE WRONG!”?[/quote]

It’s not that I cannot be wrong, it’s that science is the best method we have for discerning the truth. If something is wrong in science, it can only be corrected with MORE science. It has not ego, no dogma, it’s simply results based. If I found good evidence for the existence of the soul I would change my stance completely.

I’m also speaking w/ respect to the physical world, things relative to us. I am not claiming to absolutely know that souls do not exist.

227

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

…science is the best method we have for discerning the truth…

[/quote]

A statement of faith.

A dogma.

Without knowing everything you have no idea what the best method is. When you claim otherwise you express your faith. This is why I keep saying you atheistic, science is the be-all, end-all of everything folks are religious fanatics.
[/quote]

Not really.

Science has an excellent track record. I haven’t seen a better method from discerning truth from falsehoods.

If another method came out tomorrow that provided better more consistent results I would dump science completely.

Also before you paint all atheists with the same brush not all atheists believe in science check out these guys:

They believe the claims of the bible except that Jesus was an extraterrestrial.

229

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

…Science has an excellent track record…

[/quote]

Science has a horrendous track record. You do NOT want to go down this road, Raj.[/quote]

No, let’s go down this road.

231

[quote]therajraj wrote:
If you care about the truth, you need an accurate method of discerning the truth. Science and the scientific method is the best method to discerning the truth.[/quote]

Discerning the truth, via science?

Nah raj, even scientists wouldn’t claim that.

It’s more about discovering and compiling as much as we can given our sensory limitations (ie. the small ‘visible light’ slice of the entire EM spectrum, the fact that we can’t sense EM fields but sharks can, and so on) and eventually mixing in some sound, logical reasoning to best explain the world around us.

232

We on macro-evolution yet, or is Push firmly refusing to touch that topic still? =p

233

[quote]therajraj wrote:
If something is wrong in science, it can only be corrected with MORE science. It has not ego, no dogma, it’s simply results based. [/quote]

Indeed. So how do we tackle the questions for which there are no results? no data?

I originally brought up the ages-old questions of the mind, soul etc simply because they’ve been asked well before this modern age of science (and all its wonderful advances in tech) and yet remain as mysterious as ever.

234

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
If you care about the truth, you need an accurate method of discerning the truth. Science and the scientific method is the best method to discerning the truth.[/quote]

Discerning the truth, via science?

Nah raj, even scientists wouldn’t claim that.

It’s more about discovering and compiling as much as we can given our sensory limitations (ie. the small ‘visible light’ slice of the entire EM spectrum, the fact that we can’t sense EM fields but sharks can, and so on) and eventually mixing in some sound, logical reasoning to best explain the world around us.

[/quote]

Are you referring to absolute truths? If so I agree.

However science does produce results that are demonstrably true. I can conduct an experiment that yields x results. You then can then carry out the very same experiment and and produce the exact same results.

So I would argue science unveils demonstrable truths.

235

[quote]chillain wrote:

Indeed. So how do we tackle the questions for which there are no results? no data?

[/quote]

Simple.

You say “I don’t know”

There’s nothing wrong with that answer.

Edit: There are questions science will not be able to answer for us. But that doesn’t mean you slot in any idea that sounds plausible to you. It has to have some reasonable basis in order to be rational.

236

Gym time, i’ll be back later.

237

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Simple.

You say “I don’t know”

There’s nothing wrong with that answer. [/quote]

Agreed.

And on the previous page, I claimed that this accounts for the lack of satisfaction that empirical science provides.

(also raj, look up ‘materialism vs dualism’ re: the soul, mind etc - smarter people than us have already have already published much on these topics)

239

Definitely applicable

And again at 50% speed for those that are a little slower

240

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Simple.

You say “I don’t know”

There’s nothing wrong with that answer. [/quote]

Agreed.

And on the previous page, I claimed that this accounts for the lack of satisfaction that empirical science provides.

(also raj, look up ‘materialism vs dualism’ re: the soul, mind etc - smarter people than us have already have already published much on these topics)
[/quote]

If there is a lack of scientific evidence for the soul, then what are you basing stance of the concept of the soul on?

I looked up soul dualism and it’s a range of beliefs different cultures have with the soul. Is that what you’re talking about?

Every attribute that’s been attached to this concept of the soul can be identified as the function of the brain.

Let me ask you something. There are people who have suffered traumatic brain injuries that have caused memory loss and dramatic personality shifts. If there is this soul piloting the body, why is it a traumatic shock has the ability to reset the brain and also personality? There are people out there who have gone through horrible brain traumas and completely rewritten who they are. I’m talking COMPLETE amnesia.

Or what about split brain patients? How does that work w/ respect to the soul?