just chemical reactions and electric impulses

[_RockSlider]

An old Cleon Skousen tape on the atonement had an interesting exercise.

"Point to yourself".

Our first impulse might be to point at our breast, or heart. However, he suggested that if you think about it, you may want to point to this very small point, about dead center of your head.

I've had the sacred experience of being with a couple of my close relatives when they passed.

Whatever it is that is Life; that is the difference in your eyes the second before death and the second after it. That is the soul.

[_Buffalo]

How to explain love in terms of chemical reactions and electric impulses?

Birth, sickness, triumphs, death... reactions to those focused down to chemical reactions?

We can probably do that, but I can't help but think we lose something precious when we do.

We don't lose anything at all. There is nothing intrinsically more meaningful about the idea of "spirit" or "spiritual" than the idea of physical.

[_Buffalo]

Is there something mystical, unexplainable--a soul if you will--or just chemical reactions and electric impulses?

Or a mix of the two? If a soul is within us and if it has impact on us, perhaps there is some effect via chemical reactions and electric impulses.

There isn't.

[_Buffalo]

Whatever it is that is Life; that is the difference in your eyes the second before death and the second after it. That is the soul.

The soul lies is the focus in the eye musculature and moisture content of the surface of the eyes?

[_mikwut]

Hello Sock,

Is there something mystical, unexplainable--a soul if you will--or just chemical reactions and electric impulses?

Well, its a loaded question by being framed as either or. I think the more interesting psychological question is why answer this question conclusively when we don't know if we are just chemical reactions and electric impulses, whether theist or atheist? There are seemingly good reasons to believe that we are more than chemical reactions and just electrical impulses even if one doesn't hold to a theistic belief of what that means (our mere experience of "understanding", "free will" etc..). Is it just shock value, is it just hardass thought to have that edge of if your just mud and piss and you love and value someone then your really badass? I don't know, I am asking sincerely. Withholding judgment is clearly the most rational thing to do. Here are a couple reasons why, there are many more:

Roger Penrose with John Lucas (not a couple theistic soul chasers) have demonstrated rather conclusively, utilizing Kurt Godel's theorem, that we are not just complex computers. I know Godel's name gets bandied about in theistic/atheistic discussions sometimes trivially, I don't understand the mathematics and most don't either, but I can read. The gist of his theorem and what Lucas and Penrose demonstrated is that if we are only schematically complex computers (which chemical reactions and electrical impulses seemingly only could be) we would be able to know our own programs and thus outwit ourselves which isn't possible. Hence, something we don't know, i.e. something more is quite possible. That something more doesn't have to have a "soul" however you define that but it certainly could. But, it also doesn't have to reduce us to "just" or "merely" mud with electricity either.

Some of the possible implications of the science we have are contrary to the historical nuts and bolts materialistic view that historically developed. Quantum physics may turn out to be completely materialistic but implications of mind being fundamental (which doesn't have to imply a theistic framework) seem to be possibilities. We don't understand what the meaning and ramifications of that is. Beautiful and miraculous no matter what your world view.

Is a loved one any less special or important to you whether his or her unique configuration of chemical reactions and electric impulses is coupled with an unexplainable 'soul'?

Another loaded question. But if we stick to hypothetical's I read your question like this: "If a loved one turns out to be more miraculous than the already miraculous configuration of mere chemical reactions is the loved one even more special?" I answer. Yes, obviously. This doesn't mean if the loved one is just a spark plug that they can't be valued or loved and be special - but they empirically are not as "special" as a spark plug with an eternal soul or something more. That is just empirical reality. If your asking in a what kind of ice cream do you prefer kind of way - I suppose you could counter with you prefer the special and depthful importance of loving someone who is merely a flesh computer and I couldn't argue otherwise, just plead with you.

my thoughts and best,

mikwut

[_RockSlider]

The soul lies is the focus in the eye musculature and moisture content of the surface of the eyes?

sure

and yet that flicker of life which transitions in milliseconds is instantanely sensed, rather one was focused on the eyes or not.

[_Buffalo]

The soul lies is the focus in the eye musculature and moisture content of the surface of the eyes?

sure

and yet that flicker of life which transitions in milliseconds is instantanely sensed, rather one was focused on the eyes or not.

Ever see someone lose consciousness? The eyes change quickly there too. It's not magic - it's just how eyes work.

[_RockSlider]

Ever see someone lose consciousness? The eyes change quickly there too. It's not magic - it's just how eyes work.

Have you ever been holding the hand of a loved one when they passed? If so, do you equate this with someone losing consciousness?

Yes, I have witnessed both and no they are not the same. The eyes are simply an example where the spark of life is seen to flicker out. Lets say it's a blind man, and you simply hear that final gasp of breath and then they are gone. Or even much later, say at a viewing where it is quite obvious, that is not the person you knew, that which animated them is gone. They have left only a shell - dust to dust and all that.

[_sock puppet]

Hello Sock,

Is there something mystical, unexplainable--a soul if you will--or just chemical reactions and electric impulses?

Well, its a loaded question by being framed as either or. I think the more interesting psychological question is why answer this question conclusively when we don't know if we are just chemical reactions and electric impulses, whether theist or atheist?

Maybe there is no answer possible. Maybe it would be premature. But is there a problem in raising the issue for discussion and culling what inputs different people and their different perspectives are?

There are seemingly good reasons to believe that we are more than chemical reactions and just electrical impulses even if one doesn't hold to a theistic belief of what that means (our mere experience of "understanding", "free will" etc..). Is it just shock value, is it just hardass thought to have that edge of if your just mud and piss and you love and value someone then your really badass?

The question is about the value of a mysterical, terminal "soul" concept for people to value each other, hold them dear, etc., rather than perhaps coming to ever greater understandings of why we are what we each are, chalking up the undiscovered, yet unexplained aspects, to a "soul"? I don't get how coming down on one side of that question or the other gives one "badass" attitude.

I don't know, I am asking sincerely. Withholding judgment is clearly the most rational thing to do.

Perhaps it is if necessary to hold on to one's faith in the 'unexplainable'.

Here are a couple reasons why, there are many more:

Roger Penrose with John Lucas (not a couple theistic soul chasers) have demonstrated rather conclusively, utilizing Kurt Godel's theorem, that we are not just complex computers. I know Godel's name gets bandied about in theistic/atheistic discussions sometimes trivially, I don't understand the mathematics and most don't either, but I can read. The gist of his theorem and what Lucas and Penrose demonstrated is that if we are only schematically complex computers (which chemical reactions and electrical impulses seemingly only could be) we would be able to know our own programs and thus outwit ourselves which isn't possible.

That line of thinking presupposes an answer that there is a soul, something separate from than the chemical reactions/electrical impulses, that can examine in a detached way those chemical reactions/electrical implications. An implication of the question is the question of whether there is a soul. Without that presupposition (one I do not accept a priori), then we're right back to the question posed in the OP. For example, the HAL 9000 hasn't been developed, is currently just fiction and may not be possible.

Hence, something we don't know, i.e. something more is quite possible. That something more doesn't have to have a "soul" however you define that but it certainly could. But, it also doesn't have to reduce us to "just" or "merely" mud with electricity either.

Some of the possible implications of the science we have are contrary to the historical nuts and bolts materialistic view that historically developed. Quantum physics may turn out to be completely materialistic but implications of mind being fundamental (which doesn't have to imply a theistic framework) seem to be possibilities. We don't understand what the meaning and ramifications of that is. Beautiful and miraculous no matter what your world view.

Is a loved one any less special or important to you whether his or her unique configuration of chemical reactions and electric impulses is coupled with an unexplainable 'soul'?

Another loaded question. But if we stick to hypothetical's I read your question like this: "If a loved one turns out to be more miraculous than the already miraculous configuration of mere chemical reactions is the loved one even more special?" I answer. Yes, obviously. This doesn't mean if the loved one is just a spark plug that they can't be valued or loved and be special - but they empirically are not as "special" as a spark plug with an eternal soul or something more. That is just empirical reality. If your asking in a what kind of ice cream do you prefer kind of way - I suppose you could counter with you prefer the special and depthful importance of loving someone who is merely a flesh computer and I couldn't argue otherwise, just plead with you.

my thoughts and best,

mikwut

So from an individual's perspective, he or she values another more if there remain mystical, unexplained aspects of that other. Or as Bono might sings:

It's all right, it's all right, it's all right
She moves in mysterious ways
It's all right, it's all right, it's all right
She moves in mysterious ways
O-o-oh.

mikwut, you seem to disparage that these questions are even posed. That makes me wonder if you've started down this path of analysis before and backed out and now avoid it to protect your theistic beliefs.

[_Tchild]

Is there something mystical, unexplainable--a soul if you will--or just chemical reactions and electric impulses?

Is a loved one any less special or important to you whether his or her unique configuration of chemical reactions and electric impulses is coupled with an unexplainable 'soul'?

Is there something beyond the ego (the thinking mind with its chemical reactions and electric impulses?)

Some people think so. They may not reference a "soul", which sort of denotes a physical-something separate from our bodies.

How do we access that non-physical, non-local aspect of consciousness then?

Hell if I know, but it makes for good reading. People do sell books on that subject, which make buyers like me feel good reading them and creating hope that I don't end up a blank nothing.