@Sumbo-DeSpeshal I agree. Your answer makes sense.
There are no monsters in the mythological sense
Do you believe in souls?
-
@OliveOlivia said in Do you believe in souls?:
@petrapark3r How can we not know if animals are really conscious if they are able to learn, feel, and be aware of their surroundings like we do?
Your definition of consciousness I would say already applies to my dog, and I'm sure many other pets and animals out there too?No, no, it could be the same way, that boston dynamics robots learn, "feel" and are aware of their sorroundings. My definition of consciousness is not, that something acts like a conscious agent (which boston dynamic robots tend to do with simple tasks like carrying boxes from one place to another, and being kicked in the but by mean engineers), but to actually have this... I cannot describe what consciousness is. You know what it is, and so do I, because and only because we are conscious.
-
@OliveOlivia Now that's an interesting note and it shows how our minds control our actions from the very start of life.
-
I think yr worried unnecessarily about what consciousness is, Petra. Consciousness is like when you pour some sherbert in a can of cola and then shake it up and drink it down, only the sherbert is the dendrites in yr neural pathways, and the cola is the axons in yr pre-frontal receptors.
I dunno whether there's such a thing as a soul or not. All I'd say is, one of the only times I remember blubbing at the TV is that episode of the Simpsons where Bart sells his soul, and then in the end gets it back. Weird, huh?
-
@Indrid-Cold said in Do you believe in souls?:
I think yr worried unnecessarily about what consciousness is, Petra. Consciousness is like when you pour some sherbert in a can of cola and then shake it up and drink it down, only the sherbert is the dendrites in yr neural pathways, and the cola is the axons in yr pre-frontal receptors.
I find the topic fascinating. Even more fascinating I find the people who are – without any substantiated argument – fully convinced that consciousness is but a function of matter...
I dunno whether there's such a thing as a soul or not. All I'd say is, one of the only times I remember blubbing at the TV is that episode of the Simpsons where Bart sells his soul, and then in the end gets it back. Weird, huh?
What's "blubbing"?
-
@petrapark3r BLUBBING. You know blubbing, mate - lip wobbles, eyes fill up.
And as for those people poking them robos, I think they've got the right idea. You wanna get proactive with treating them as non-human, otherwise you'll start ANTHROPOMORPHISING them, and then you'll go mad with guilt when you accidentally run them over with a beach buggy ala Bruce Dern in Silent Running.
-
@Indrid-Cold said in Do you believe in souls?:
@petrapark3r BLUBBING. You know blubbing, mate - lip wobbles, eyes fill up.
And as for those people poking them robos, I think they've got the right idea. You wanna get proactive with treating them as non-human, otherwise you'll start ANTHROPOMORPHISING them, and then you'll go mad with guilt when you accidentally run them over with a beach buggy ala Bruce Dern in Silent Running.
:joy: let's give em hell mate
-
@petrapark3r From what you are saying I'm not really sure what consciousness is. I've always been told that it simply being aware of ones self and its surroundings. If that is all it is than I would definitely say that animals have this, Monkeys for instance, I wouldn't say theyre any less conscious than us, dolphins, ocras, etc.
I think just because animals don't act and 'aren't as smart' as us, people don't realize they are greater than they appear. They are smart, they know what theyre doing, they do not just act and react. They think, they feel, they create, they discover, they know much more than we know they know -
@OliveOlivia said in Do you believe in souls?:
@petrapark3r From what you are saying I'm not really sure what consciousness is. I've always been told that it simply being aware of ones self and its surroundings. If that is all it is than I would definitely say that animals have this, Monkeys for instance, I wouldn't say theyre any less conscious than us, dolphins, ocras, etc.
I think just because animals don't act and 'aren't as smart' as us, people don't realize they are greater than they appear. They are smart, they know what theyre doing, they do not just act and react. They think, they feel, they create, they discover, they know much more than we know they knowThat is propably true.
Let me try to write up a good explanation of consciousness.... Hmm. Okay, let's take the meditation novice's point of view: Consciousness includes the ability to perceive yourself as the actor of your actions, as the subject, who does things. The ability to perceive your self.
You have strange dreams, so you might not be able to relate :shrug: but when I dream, I sometimes do it in an "unconscious" way. E.g. I don't control my actions, I don't even realize what I'm doing, things are just happening, and I'm not aware of being a self, of being an actor. And later I remember them and I remember I was in that dream. But this feeling of being the subject who dreams, of being an I, of being a person, returns only when I'm awake. (I also know lucid dreams and other dreams where I'm more conscious btw...)
What we don't know is wether animals are able to perceive them selves or wether they just act the way they learned to act at one point. They can be smart, they can follow goals, they can even (monkeys at least) realize that the thing in the mirror is their own image. But are they proper aware of being someone? Or are they more in a dream like state? We might not ever know...
-
@OliveOlivia said in Do you believe in souls?:
@AuroraFan said in Do you believe in souls?:
The human race are cry-babies though.
We are born cry babies and we stay cry babies 😂
People don't grow up. We only pretend to because it's expected of us.
-
@OliveOlivia said in Do you believe in souls?:
Do you think humans have souls? Do you think animals have souls?
Why or why not?
Basically I'm a soul.
-
What do you think soul is?
-
You are probably aware of all the different theories people have had of it over times?
-
@Male101y Dunno, but the best way I could describe it is energy
-
@OliveOlivia Google defines the soul as the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal. I don't think anything in me is immortal that is gonna stay forever. And I have no idea in what state it will stay after my body (that is made of matter) will decay. There is not a single shred of evidence something like that exists so I am gonna say there is no soul.
-
@ChaosKing said in Do you believe in souls?:
@OliveOlivia Google defines the soul as the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal. I don't think anything in me is immortal that is gonna stay forever. And I have no idea in what state it will stay after my body (that is made of matter) will decay. There is not a single shred of evidence something like that exists so I am gonna say there is no soul.
Let me recount some evidence then.
- First of all predictions. Many people frequently experience knowing things in advance in their life. Scientifically this should not be possible since Entropy needs to increase for time to flow forward. If information can be sent through time backwards, then Entropy would increase in the opposite direction. So this seems like a non-physical phenomenon.
- Non-physical communication. Like when people know that something bad happened to a loved one. It actually happens quite frequently... Statistically you should know at least 3 people who have made that experience.
- Near Death Experiences. They usually follow the same pattern: Some kind of judgement (sometimes it's a movie of your life, where you recognize what was good and bad, sometimes it's an actual judgement, some people see jesus), meeting loved ones who died, some see angels, others see demons, others see even stranger things...
- The origin of the universe. There are two options: 1. the universe (or multiverse) is eternal. 2. God is eternal and created the universe. If option 1 is true, then we'd have one problem: the universe would be irrational, because of the endless causal chain. If you want to I can elaborate.
Of course none of this is proof. But it is evidence...
-
everything has the same soul
-
-
@OliveOlivia I dont care if I have a soul or not. As long as I have your heart, I will be alive :smirk:
-
@petrapark3r first of all sorry for the late reply, haven't been here much.
- Many people frequently experience knowing things in advance in their life, I don't know what you are talking about but I have not known a single person who can see the future. Using complex words like entropy and stuff doesn't make it the right argument. "Entropy is the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work." In simple words, entropy is a measure of disorder in the sense that all systems tend to, on their own, become less ordered. I don't know how it is related to your argument.
- Well that's coz people almost think every day that something bad happened to their loved once, take an example of a soldier, soldiers do work in a dangerous situation, and their family members know that so these bad thoughts keep coming in their mind and if something bad happens it doesn't mean that something supernatural communicated to them to tell that something bad happened with their loved one.
- There is lots of evidence, lots and lots, to support that the human brain creates illusions and hallucination when it is under stress. Anyway if you are a Hindu you will see Lord Krishna, if you're a Christian you will see Jesus or Yahweh (mostly Jesus) if you're a Muslim you will see Muhammad or Allah, can't you see how every near-death experience depends on your religion. I also had some hallucinations a while ago and I can't blame them, it feels so real.
- First of all multiverse theory is still a hypothesis it's not yet a scientific theory, and I am pretty sure it doesn't say the universe is eternal it states that there may be multiple or even an infinite number of universes. Please get your facts correct. There are not "ONLY TWO OPTIONS". Please learn to say we don't know, coz we don't know the origin of the universe yet, that's the only place God is hiding rn. Please tell me who created the GOD? You are answering a simple question with another question if God created the universe who created god? The universe will be irrational, what does that even mean?
Not a single word you said is evidence it is BS....
-
@ChaosKing said in Do you believe in souls?:
@petrapark3r first of all sorry for the late reply, haven't been here much.
np :blush:
- Many people frequently experience knowing things in advance in their life, I don't know what you are talking about but I have not known a single person who can see the future.
I concede, that it is not that common. So I wouldn't expect you to know someone like that. There are instances however.
Using complex words like entropy and stuff doesn't make it the right argument.
Of course not.
"Entropy is the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work." In simple words, entropy is a measure of disorder in the sense that all systems tend to, on their own, become less ordered. I don't know how it is related to your argument.
Science at this point is not sure about why time runs forward. From the point of view of relativity you have four dimensions and you can compute everything forward or backward. There is no reason in relativity theory for why time should run forward. Thus one of the explicatory models for why time runs forward is entropy, for it always increases in one direction (forward in time).
The argument was that if information could run backwards in time, then entropy would increase backwards too. This obviously should not happen. Thus knowing the future contradicts the increase of entropy forward in time.
But you are perfectly right, there should be no need for even referencing why knowing the future could be supernatural. Knowing the future (if it was really so) would be evidence for something supernatural going on.
- Well that's coz people almost think every day that something bad happened to their loved once, take an example of a soldier, soldiers do work in a dangerous situation, and their family members know that so these bad thoughts keep coming in their mind and if something bad happens it doesn't mean that something supernatural communicated to them to tell that something bad happened with their loved one.
Have you ever talked to someone who claims to have known when a loved one died? The ones I talked to have made a convincing case, and they were normal people with normal lives who did not fear all day that something bad would happen.
So, unless you can counter each and every such experience (and not just the soldier and his wife fearing) it would be irrational to not call this evidence. It is not proof, I fully agree, because for every single instance alone there might be another explanation, but with so many cases calling it evidence is perfectly reasonable.
- There is lots of evidence, lots and lots, to support that the human brain creates illusions and hallucination when it is under stress. Anyway if you are a Hindu you will see Lord Krishna, if you're a Christian you will see Jesus or Yahweh (mostly Jesus) if you're a Muslim you will see Muhammad or Allah, can't you see how every near-death experience depends on your religion. I also had some hallucinations a while ago and I can't blame them, it feels so real.
Don't just go ahead and claim things without any verification. In recent years there have been lots of muslims who had visions of Jesus and converted to christianity because of this. In fact in history there have been many accounts of people converting from other faiths to christianity, because of a vision like this. It actually happens a lot. And it also happens with near death experiences.
But yes, I concede that there might be other explanations. However since you cannot prove that other explanations are the correct explanation, it is perfectly reasonable to call this evidence, since evidence, just like in any criminal case, can point in multiple directions.
- First of all multiverse theory is still a hypothesis it's not yet a scientific theory, and I am pretty sure it doesn't say the universe is eternal it states that there may be multiple or even an infinite number of universes.
This wasn't the point of the argument. I was simply including all common theories. I propably should have used the word "world" or "nature" though instead of universe or multiverse to make it clear what I am talking about: the natural world.
Please get your facts correct. There are not "ONLY TWO OPTIONS". Please learn to say we don't know, coz we don't know the origin of the universe yet, that's the only place God is hiding rn.
Please think it trough properly. Things don't come out of nowhere. Existence is a mystery. There should be nothing, not even the possibility of something happening. Something does not come from nothing.
Yes I do know about quantum particles being created in what we call "nothing". (I add the quotes, because we actually don't understand the quantum world properly yet. We still have no quantum-gravity and we don't know how space time is related to quantum mechanics. So we are not sure about this nothing really, but thats not the actual point. The actual point is: ) Quantum particles are created all the time. There is nature to it. This is not a possibility of anything happening, it is a possibility of something very specific happening. There is a reason this happens.
So there is something, even if that something is this quantum nature which we don't understand yet. Something is there even if that something is not matter but a nature or a possibility. And from this comes something else, particles, a zero sum game.
So something does not come from nothing, something does not happen without a reason, only without a cause (at least it seems that way in the quantum world).
Maybe I'm making this a bit too complicated here. Maybe I should just say: there should be nothing. There should not even be the possibility of something. But there is something. And this something seems completely regular, logical, mathematical. So it is there for a reason. It cannot be there for no reason. It could not be there without the possiblity of being there.
Thus it cannot be, that there "once" (or before time or outside of time) was nothing. Something must have always (or rather eternally) been there, even if that something is just the nature of things.
I used the word eternal for a reason. Eternal does not mean: time that stretches forever into the past and forever into the future. Eternal would also be something that was not inside this universe, not inside time (because time is space-time, it clearly began at the big-bang according to our understanding of it – which is a consensus among scientists).
So, something must be eternal, or else there would not be anything. This something can either be nature (A quantum world from which universes pop out is one example of such an eternal nature) or it can be God.
There is no "we don't know". We don't know how this universe came to be yes. But we do know that nature (from which this universe came to be) must be eternal, if we do not want to assume God.
Please tell me who created the GOD?
Nobody did. That is the point. God is his own reason, or he has no reason. This fact, as you can clearly see, makes him irrational. Right?
You are answering a simple question with another question if God created the universe who created god? The universe will be irrational, what does that even mean?
If there is no God, then what is the reason for being? Nature itself. Ergo, nature itself is its own reason, or has no reason. This makes nature irrational in the same sense as God would be irrational. I hope this makes the argument clearer.
Not a single word you said is evidence it is BS....
You simply dismiss evidence by countering it each with a single argument. But evidence, just like in a criminal case, often cannot be dismissed this easily. Sometimes, just like in a criminal case, you will never know if something really is evidence or not. And as long as you cannot disprove beyond doubt that something is evidence, it is perfectly rational and fine to call it so. So don't BS me!
