A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Well yeah, that's my time, US Central time. No matter she's online right now replying to this thread.

[LadyShea]

I can't believe this has gotten into a conversation about souls and reincarnation from the simple observation that death is the opposite of life.

LOL, what do you care what people talk about in your absence? Aren't you leaving forever again?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ChuckF's Newb Rules

6. Posting crazy things has predictable results.
Guess what happens when you post crazy things! People treat you like you're crazy. Now guess what happens when you post stupid things.

7. Learn to deal.
does not have moderators. Posts are deleted only in a very narrow set of circumstances (e.g. commercial spam or illegal content). There is no censor to intervene on your behalf. Do not ask for someone to be banned simply because that person says things you do not like. It will not happen.

There is an ignore function. If you don't like what someone has to say, learn to use it.

Also, recognize that the ignore function achieves precisely one thing: you will no longer be able to see the ignored individual's posts unless you choose to see them. It does not prevent the ignored individual from making posts readable by others.

8. If you love you should stay.
Some people do well here and settle in just fine. I hope you do too.

9. If you hate you should gtfo.
Other people don't like it here. They generally gtfo, or get the fuck out. If you decide to get the fuck out, you have two options.

Silent retreat: just stop posting.
Drama exit flail: tell everyone how bad the forum is and why you are leaving. This is preferable to silent retreat, because it is almost unfailingly fucking hilarious.

Also, if you decide to gtfo, stay tfo. The only thing funnier than drama exit flailing is drama exit flailing followed by one or more returns.

You are still a newb after almost a year

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well, we could just assume, for sake of argument, that the 'soul' exists and see where it takes us. You could start with a 'working' definition of a 'soul' if you like.

Here's what Lessans had to say about words such as soul and reincarnation.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Ten: p. 484

There are all kinds of explanations about the
hereafter, this spiritual world of souls, but I am not interested in
words, just the flesh. You are in for quite a pleasant surprise, but
because man’s mind has been so filled with words such as afterlife,
soul, spirit, reincarnation, heaven, etc., which have been used to
explain death, although they have absolutely no meaning whatsoever,
we were unable to extract the pure unadulterated mathematical
relations that existed when these words were removed. Theologians
and other philosophers received intuitive incursions that man was
truly immortal, but they had no way of communicating or translating
their feelings into language that could not be denied simply because
they were completely confused with words and beliefs.

[Spacemonkey]

Where's that definition, Peacegirl?

What about Lessans' presuppositions on conscience, Peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, what do you care what people talk about in your absence? Aren't you leaving forever again?

I didn't say I was leaving this time. I said I didn't have any reason to converse with you because there's no basis for communication.

[LadyShea]

Soul and spirit were just words attempting to describe consciousness in a time when humans knew nothing about the brain or how it worked.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where's that definition, Peacegirl?

What about Lessans' presuppositions on conscience, Peacegirl?

Either you understand his definition of determinism, or you don't, and I won't move forward until you do. I doubt if that's gonna happen.

[LadyShea]

I didn't say I was leaving this time. I said I didn't have any reason to converse with you because there's no basis for communication.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

are you all convinced that he doesn't have a discovery, in which case this thread is over.

So this was not a threat to leave forever?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say I was leaving this time. I said I didn't have any reason to converse with you because there's no basis for communication.

Oh I get it! The conversation was (P) over, and what you are doing now is now conversing but (P) conversing. Probably because you live in (P) reality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So this was not a threat to leave forever?

That was an attempt to either get people to listen (which they aren't), or I am leaving. My response to you had nothing to do with that comment.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Either you understand his definition of determinism, or you don't, and I won't move forward until you do. I doubt if that's gonna happen.

I didn't ask for his definition of determinism. That's not the definition I'm talking about. I asked for a definition of "greater satisfaction" which would render his satisfaction principle non-circular, and you still haven't given me one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Soul and spirit were just words attempting to describe consciousness in a time when humans knew nothing about the brain or how it worked.

You make it sound as if these words are obsolete. They still are an important aspect of many philosophies and religions, even though we know a lot more about the brain.

Soul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't ask for his definition of determinism. That's not the definition I'm talking about. I asked for a definition of "greater satisfaction" which would render his satisfaction principle non-circular, and you still haven't given me one.

Spacemonkey, I told you where his proof begins in the first chapter. You have yet to show me that you understand his proof, or to ask me any questions that might help you understand. And I gave the definition of "greater" satisfaction. Greater satisfaction is the movement in the direction of a more satisfying position than what the present position offers. This is not an end point.

[Vivisectus]

You make it sound as if these words are obsolete. They still are an important aspect of many philosophies and religions, even though we know a lot more about the brain.

Soul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is a religious term. Sometimes it is borrowed by woo-merchants who claim to be non-religious though. They are "spiritual", and even vaguer term that seems to mean "person who believes in things that are completely undetectable"

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was an attempt to either get people to listen (which they aren't), or I am leaving. My response to you had nothing to do with that comment.

peacegirl, people are reading your posts. They just find them completely unconvincing. This has been the case for almost a year now. If you weren't so batshit crazy you would have stopped long ago. Lessans is a non-starter.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Soul and spirit were just words attempting to describe consciousness in a time when humans knew nothing about the brain or how it worked.

And just how much better are we at it now, relatively speaking?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is a religious term. Sometimes it is borrowed by woo-merchants who claim to be non-religious though. They are "spiritual", and even vaguer term that seems to mean "person who believes in things that are completely undetectable"

Well if that includes 'Invisible Pink Unicorns', then according to some people on this forum, I'm in.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And just how much better are we at it now, relatively speaking?

According to the cognitive scientists that use machine learning, they have a model to make sense of neural activity in terms of cognition and even imagination. Things are moving fast.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You make it sound as if these words are obsolete. They still are an important aspect of many philosophies and religions, even though we know a lot more about the brain.

People have held onto the terms, sure, out of adherence to, and faith in, their religious traditions. They've had to move the goalposts quite a bit, as they are used now only to describe some immaterial and undetectable part of humans that is immortal, rather than a known part of humans, consciousness, that can be talked to and observed.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And just how much better are we at it now, relatively speaking?

We know a lot more about the brain. Neuroscience is moving incredibly fast.

Take a look at this series Charlie Rose - Charlie Rose: The Brain Series and be prepared to check out names and terms used for more rabbit hole adventures into the brain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

People have held onto the terms, sure, out of adherence to, and faith in, their religious traditions. They've had to move the goalposts quite a bit, as they are used now only to describe some immaterial and undetectable part of humans that is immortal, rather than a known part of humans, consciousness, that can be talked to and observed.

I don't think they moved the goalposts very much at all. Religion has always considered the spiritual realm (heaven, hell, souls, angels, etc.) beyond what is visibly detectable until you cross over to the other side.

[LadyShea]

It was widely considered that the soul was the conscious part of a human that talks and thinks and feels.

Some may still think that, but most modern religious people understand that consciousness is a function of a living brain, and so they've posited the soul as yet something else, something apart from consciousness or personality.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

People have held onto the terms, sure, out of adherence to, and faith in, their religious traditions. They've had to move the goalposts quite a bit, as they are used now only to describe some immaterial and undetectable part of humans that is immortal, rather than a known part of humans, consciousness, that can be talked to and observed.

I am not at all sure that this is an accurate description of the history of these thoughts. So far as I can tell, the belief that these were immaterial things rather than material things existed centuries before we had modern neuroscience.

I don't think the goalposts have been moved in general on this one; the distinction between material things and non-material things goes back at least as far as Plato, and probably further.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So chalk up history as something else you've never studied.

It was widely considered that the soul was the conscious part of a human that talks and thinks and feels.

Citations? Furthermore, "widely" strikes me as leaving thoroughly open the possibility that there were other views long before modern science.

Some may still think that, but most modern religious people understand that consciousness is merely a function of a living brain, and so they've made the soul something else, something apart from consciousness or personality.

This is a gross oversimplification.

You're getting translation errors; if you take claims from a radically different framework, and translate them, you end up with things which are very different from the claims.