just chemical reactions and electric impulses

[_mikwut]

Hello Sock,

The 2nd Q of the OP is a psychological question.

OK, "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'?" I agree, that is a psychological question.

The 1st Q in the OP is empirically posed.

That's confusing. The 1st Q in the OP is, "Is there something mystical, unexplainable--a soul if you will--or just chemical reactions and electric impulses?"

By empirical I meant observationally verified in my post. What are you meaning? The question poses two possibilities. Do you mean that we might be able to empirically answer that question someday? Or do you mean one side or the other is currently empirically verified?

So whether the 1st Q (empirical) remains unanswered,

This is why I asked the questions just above. It is or it isn't.

the 2nd Q (psychological) is a question about whether we, as beings with emotions, would value others in our life less if we had a complete understanding of why they do what they do, when they do it. It is like, the toy truck that runs on batteries is not nearly so neat after I've torn it apart, seen how it works, and then put it back together again, as it was before I disassembled it and discovered how it works. Does the fascination of the mysterious with other people also make those that love us and do the unexpected "neater"?

Right, that is how I answered. I refer you to that same answer in my original post. I just didn't allow for the complete reduction to without value. I answered not as valuable.

Has judgment been rendered on these questions?

I was asking in the "you" if others remain neater to us if we continue to keep their behavior unexplained and mystical, chalked up to their 'soul' than to delve deeper scientifically to the point we have them figured out, and can explain what they do and even predict their future conduct under any given set of circumstances.

Your starting to lose me. The answer to these ultimate questions you pose determines if others remain "neater" to me. If the empirical answer is ugly then no they aren't "neater" once I have obtained that knowledge, if the empirical answer is beautiful, even more than I imagined before I obtained that knowledge then yes they are "neater" to me as you put it. I answer that without partisanship to my theism. That seems downright obvious to me.

Science is not there yet. It may never get there. But it is working towards that

Right, agreed.

me: You seemed to have conceded that we don't have an answer at least empirically one way or the other.

you: Science is by its nature a never ending quest for more knowledge and understanding than currently held. That really concedes nothing but the possibility of yet more discoveries in the future. For each of us evaluating a question like this, there comes a point at which we conclude there is perhaps enough science to answer the question for ourselves and the way we look at the world and act.

Sure, so clarify your position, is the question currently empirically answered by science or not? Did you concede that or not?

mikwut wrote:
I propose withholding judgment in that scenario and you retort that is necessary to hold on to one's faith in the 'unexplainable'? Huh? Isn't it the person who is concluding that we are just chemical and electric bags of mud that would be displaying a need to "hold on to one's faith in the 'unexplainable"?

you: It depends on the level of information known by science at any given point in time. There comes a point in which the predictive value will reach a certain point that most will base their behavior on that known information. At current, I'm asking a question, not asking anyone to conclude anything, much less ask them to act in reliance on either conclusion. Of course, theists are acting on the conclusion that there is a soul. So your point undercuts theism quite nicely.

Strange. You seem to be saying that I am contradicting myself because I have a loftier, more noble, grand and beautiful view (to me, because I am assuming the psychological nature of the OP) of man than a bag of crap. I keep that view even though it might not be true and science might show that its false, correct. I answered your query that caution should be kept before concluding that we are bags of crap, correct. But, I don't practice that cautionary principle with my theism thereby undercutting it. Is that right? If so - it doesn't undercut it and I'll psychologically keep the loftier view if you don't mind. You seem to be jumping categories, psychological and empirical. I am answering psychologically, I even encourage others to keep my general psychological way of viewing the question until that empirical fact is settled one way or the other. I think that is psychologically healthy.

mikwut wrote:
You then in response to my Penrose/Lucas point stated that that presupposes a soul. - Um. No it doesn't.

you: No explanation of how this analysis does not rely on the a priori assumption that there is a 'soul' that science will never be able to explain except that it remains mysterious? Just "No it doesn't". That does not advance your position in the least.

It is an obvious answer. The only scientific way I am aware of to reduce us to mere chemicals and electricity is to understand us as mere computers, but my example by Penrose/Lucas shows we are more than what we currently understand of computers. This was in response to your OP that there seems to be valid reasons to not conclude we are just bags of crap and electricity.

Believers always like to move the goalposts, claiming room 'prior to a complete understanding'.

There are no goalposts to move on unsettled facts and psychological queries. I simply claim them unsettled. My position is found within the definition of the word Merriam Webster determines the goalposts.

Since you do not completely understand how an automobile works, do you refrain from driving it? Or, based on your experience and evidence and deduction, you get behind the wheel and turn the key on the ignition, ...?

Another category mistake, this is a pragmatic example - not a value judgment. Although I do value the pragmatic utility.

So you are not in any way acting on your theistic believes, because until you have a complete and irrefutable knowledge of god's existence, that would not be cautious or prudent, right?

Another category mistake, my belief in God is not based on a sole psychological value judgment of the concept - it is based on facts and evidence that I deduce with all my faculties to be warranted. What happened to your OP?

my best, mikwut

[_sock puppet]

Hello Sock,

The 2nd Q of the OP is a psychological question.

OK, "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'?" I agree, that is a psychological question.

The 1st Q in the OP is empirically posed.

That's confusing. The 1st Q in the OP is, "Is there something mystical, unexplainable--a soul if you will--or just chemical reactions and electric impulses?"

By empirical I meant observationally verified in my post. What are you meaning? The question poses two possibilities. Do you mean that we might be able to empirically answer that question someday? Or do you mean one side or the other is currently empirically verified?

Q1 (empircally posed) is asking if people, including scientist/posters--which I am not--think we are there with chemical reactions/electrical impulses as a satisfactory explanation of how humans act and behave. I have not presupposed in asking the question (as you have assumed) that it is or is not. You seem to really be bothered that I would have the audacity to pose a question and ask for input from others. Why does that threaten you so?

So whether the 1st Q (empirical) remains unanswered,

This is why I asked the questions just above. It is or it isn't.

See above.

the 2nd Q (psychological) is a question about whether we, as beings with emotions, would value others in our life less if we had a complete understanding of why they do what they do, when they do it. It is like, the toy truck that runs on batteries is not nearly so neat after I've torn it apart, seen how it works, and then put it back together again, as it was before I disassembled it and discovered how it works. Does the fascination of the mysterious with other people also make those that love us and do the unexpected "neater"?

Right, that is how I answered. I refer you to that same answer in my original post. I just didn't allow for the complete reduction to without value. I answered not as valuable.

No, you simply assailed why one would be so audacious as to ask such a question, and pronounced that an answer should not be attempted at this time. Are you afraid of the answers others here might post?

Has judgment been rendered on these questions?

I was asking in the "you" if others remain neater to us if we continue to keep their behavior unexplained and mystical, chalked up to their 'soul' than to delve deeper scientifically to the point we have them figured out, and can explain what they do and even predict their future conduct under any given set of circumstances.

Your starting to lose me. The answer to these ultimate questions you pose determines if others remain "neater" to me. If the empirical answer is ugly

What answer would be ugly? If an answer someone might give is correct, how is it ugly?

then no they aren't "neater" once I have obtained that knowledge, if the empirical answer is beautiful

What answer would be beautiful? If an answer someone might give is incorrect, how would that be beautiful?

, even more than I imagined before I obtained that knowledge then yes they are "neater" to me as you put it. I answer that without partisanship to my theism. That seems downright obvious to me.

The 2 questions of the OP are related in topic. Q2 asks if it would devalue the importance of another person if you were to find out that there affection for you was the mere product of that person's unique chemistry mix and neurological wiring.

Science is not there yet. It may never get there. But it is working towards that

Right, agreed.

That is my assumption as I am not aware of the scientific discoveries and information in this regard. I am not a scientist and want to hear what those that are aware of the state of scientific knowledge in the regard might know. I assumed it because I've not yet heard from scientific posters here or scientists outside of this board on what their opinions and impressions are.

me: You seemed to have conceded that we don't have an answer at least empirically one way or the other.

you: Science is by its nature a never ending quest for more knowledge and understanding than currently held. That really concedes nothing but the possibility of yet more discoveries in the future. For each of us evaluating a question like this, there comes a point at which we conclude there is perhaps enough science to answer the question for ourselves and the way we look at the world and act.

Sure, so clarify your position, is the question currently empirically answered by science or not? Did you concede that or not?

I did not ask the questions in the OP rhetorically. I asked them to cull responses from scientist/posters. So I do not know if science has yet answered Q1 and therefore cannot concede it.

mikwut wrote:
I propose withholding judgment in that scenario and you retort that is necessary to hold on to one's faith in the 'unexplainable'? Huh? Isn't it the person who is concluding that we are just chemical and electric bags of mud that would be displaying a need to "hold on to one's faith in the 'unexplainable"?

you: It depends on the level of information known by science at any given point in time. There comes a point in which the predictive value will reach a certain point that most will base their behavior on that known information. At current, I'm asking a question, not asking anyone to conclude anything, much less ask them to act in reliance on either conclusion. Of course, theists are acting on the conclusion that there is a soul. So your point undercuts theism quite nicely.

Strange. You seem to be saying that I am contradicting myself because I have a loftier, more noble, grand and beautiful view (to me, because I am assuming the psychological nature of the OP) of man than a bag of s***. I keep that view even though it might not be true and science might show that its false, correct. I answered your query that caution should be kept before concluding that we are bags of s***, correct.

Please point to me, with quotes from the OP, how I asked if either Q1or2 is the cautious thing to draw a conclusion on at this time. That's not what I asked. But your answer is merely to deflect discussion of the question by those in the know. You don't know (as I do not) the answer to Q1 or you'd have proffered it; yet ignorant of the state of scientific discovery or knowledge on the question you caution others not to draw a conclusion. That's merely telling readers, don't go there, it's best just to stick your head in the sand. This question has you ultimately riled up, and you are bound and determined to hijack this thread and keep those with more knowledge from perhaps offering what they know. By asking these questions, I must have really struck a nerve in you that you feel the need to derail.

But, I don't practice that cautionary principle with my theism thereby undercutting it. Is that right?

Since you've said that in your opinion there is not enough information to answer Q1 and caution against anyone drawing a conclusion with respect thereto, why would you do the uncautionary thing without full knowledge to make an informed decision and act upon the 'soul' (theist) answer to the question?

If so - it doesn't undercut it

Your position is that no one should draw a conclusion re Q1, that would in your opinion be hasty, but do you act on your theistic beliefs? If so, by the very ground rules you try to impose on this query (Q1), you are acting hasty and without caution, and should not be doing so.

and I'll psychologically keep the loftier view if you don't mind. You seem to be jumping categories, psychological and empirical.

Actually, it was you that first introduced those two terms into this discussion. And I might say, Q1 is appropriately an empirically posed question and Q2 is appropriately a psychologically posed question. Good labeling by you.

I am answering psychologically, I even encourage others to keep my general psychological way of viewing the question until that empirical fact is settled one way or the other. I think that is psychologically healthy.

As to Q2, it might be psychologically healthy for some who need a mystical, unexplained component in their companions in life. Others may not. As to Q1, that would be answering an empirical question in a way to serve your own emotional needs.

mikwut wrote:
You then in response to my Penrose/Lucas point stated that that presupposes a soul. - Um. No it doesn't.

you: No explanation of how this analysis does not rely on the a priori assumption that there is a 'soul' that science will never be able to explain except that it remains mysterious? Just "No it doesn't". That does not advance your position in the least.

It is an obvious answer. The only scientific way I am aware of to reduce us to mere chemicals and electricity is to understand us as mere computers, but my example by Penrose/Lucas shows we are more than what we currently understand of computers. This was in response to your OP that there seems to be valid reasons to not conclude we are just bags of s*** and electricity.

And it only serves as a line of thought that presupposes one of two alternates to the question asked. I.e., that there is a soul, separate and apart from the chemical reactions/electrical impulses. Instead of jumping to the conclusion to support the answer you want to Q1, try answering Q1 without that assumption. The way you have described Penrose/Lucas, you've merely proven that those that assume there is a separate soul can from that assumption deduce that there must be a separate soul. For if that separate soul looks at just the separate chemical reactions/electrical impulses, it will realize that it is separate. Wow.

Believers always like to move the goalposts, claiming room 'prior to a complete understanding'.

There are no goalposts to move on unsettled facts and psychological queries. I simply claim them unsettled. My position is found within the definition of the word Merriam Webster determines the goalposts.

Since you do not completely understand how an automobile works, do you refrain from driving it? Or, based on your experience and evidence and deduction, you get behind the wheel and turn the key on the ignition, ...?

Another category mistake, this is a pragmatic example - not a value judgment. Although I do value the pragmatic utility.

You are once again conflating Q1 and Q2. The value judgment is posed by Q2, the psychological question, not Q1. Again, your bringing the psychological-empirical dichotomy to the two Qs posed in the OP was correct and helpful, but now you complain about it.

So you are not in any way acting on your theistic believes, because until you have a complete and irrefutable knowledge of god's existence, that would not be cautious or prudent, right?

Another category mistake, my belief in God is not based on a sole psychological value judgment of the concept - it is based on facts and evidence that I deduce with all my faculties to be warranted. What happened to your OP?

You've done your best to hijack and derail it, fearful that there might be scientific evidence posted in response to it that would threaten the 'soul' underpinning of your theistic beliefs. You tell me, what happened to my OP?

You caution atheists not to draw conclusions to these questions because, without knowing, you claim that the state of scientific evidence is incomplete to draw such conclusions. Yet, in the face of your own cries (albeit uninformed) that there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion, you've done just that.

So in sum, you've drawn conclusions that there is a soul separate and apart from chemical reactions/electrical wiring, a conclusion that is necessary for your theistic beliefs, but you caution others that they should not draw a conclusion on this issue because the scientific evidence is incomplete. Certainly looks like you are afraid someone in the know will post information here that will rock your belief system, and so you do not want it discussed.

Now, since you don't have scientific knowledge to add on Q1, and you've warned others that you think they should not try to answer Q1, how about letting this side rail discussion die out so that others, scientist/posters with some information weigh in?

[Guest]

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

Or simply an intellegence -- as Cleon put it "the little I am" the singular point in the middle of your head that you would point to as, yourself.

That little "point" smack dab in the middle of your head is your pineal gland. And, in fact, Rene' Descartes identified it as the "seat of the soul". It was said to be the part of the body through which the divine linked to the human, and the connection by which God influenced humankind.

As far as we know, pinealectomies do not turn patients into amoral godless atheists. Folks can live perfectly well without their pineal gland.

[_mikwut]

Hello Sock,

I seem to have bothered you somehow. My original post I just re-read, it is pretty judicious to theistic or atheistic positions. You seem to be reading into my responses some things that aren't there. I will leave you with this last response as you requested.

Q1 (empircally posed) is asking if people, including scientist/posters--which I am not--think we are there with chemical reactions/electrical impulses as a satisfactory explanation of how humans act and behave. I have not presupposed in asking the question (as you have assumed) that it is or is not

The matter is not empirically determined presently. No I am not a scientist, but one need only be a breathing thinking human being with a newspaper subscription, or a television or internet connection or even a library card to realize that (because no study exists that confirms it). That is why I "assumed" you had conceded so mundane of a point. But, by all means I will bow out and allow you to solicit from the anonymous posters on a message board the journal articles that empirically show we are merely electrical bags of crap.

You seem to really be bothered that I would have the audacity to pose a question and ask for input from others. Why does that threaten you so?

It doesn't, the weird shoe you propose is on the other foot, I am happy for the posts themselves to do the talking on that. If we are bags of determined crap were bags of crap - I am just not hoping for that less valuable state of affairs or outcome to be the case before concluding we are. Why are you cheering for it?

No, you simply assailed why one would be so audacious as to ask such a question

,

I entered your discussion and provided you my opinions and thoughts, I never questioned why you would do so. I encourage the discussion. It is interesting, that's why I chose to post a response to you.

and pronounced that an answer should not be attempted at this time. Are you afraid of the answers others here might post?

My answer to your admitted psychological question answers this for you. My opinion (which I find nearly obvious) is that determined bags of electro-chemical crap are a less satisfying state of affairs than other possible atheistic outcomes and theistic ones. So, I simply stated the mundane position that unless your a masochist let's not choose the less satisfying option, that's all.

What answer would be ugly? If an answer someone might give is correct, how is it ugly?

There obviously are less hopeful, less satisfying and less meaningful and valuable states of affairs among more satisfying ones - this is a pretty uncontroversial statement. That's all I meant by ugly and pretty, they were used in response to your "neat".

What answer would be beautiful? If an answer someone might give is incorrect, how would that be beautiful?

I believe beauty to be a commonly understood descriptor that could be applied to possible outcomes in the same way we everyday use the term.

The 2 questions of the OP are related in topic. Q2 asks if it would devalue the importance of another person if you were to find out that there affection for you was the mere product of that person's unique chemistry mix and neurological wiring.

I know. I don't know why you keep repeating it, I answered yes.

you: Science is not there yet. It may never get there. But it is working towards that

me: Right, agreed.

you: That is my assumption as I am not aware of the scientific discoveries and information in this regard. I am not a scientist and want to hear what those that are aware of the state of scientific knowledge in the regard might know. I assumed it because I've not yet heard from scientific posters here or scientists outside of this board on what their opinions and impressions are.

By all means gather opinions from all fields. I just assume when someone says, "Science is not there yet", in a discussion like this it is safe for me to assume we agree the answer has not been empirically verified.

I did not ask the questions in the OP rhetorically. I asked them to cull responses from scientist/posters. So I do not know if science has yet answered Q1 and therefore cannot concede it.

Oh, my bad. Didn't realize I was invading a scientist only thread - maybe that was because you didn't ask that specific group in the OP. I didn't answer rhetorically. And just how are you not conceding the point when you just above stated, science isn't there yet?

Please point to me, with quotes from the OP, how I asked if either Q1or2 is the cautious thing to draw a conclusion on at this time.

You didn't but that doesn't preclude the answer I gave as perfectly relevant toward the OP. Please quote for me where you restricted the answers or opinions to exclude the ones I provided you?

That's not what I asked. But your answer is merely to deflect discussion of the question by those in the know.

Oh brother, re-read and re-think. Deflect? Did you have a predetermined idea in mind? And "these in the know" - who are these interesting people that have verified empirically the question your OP asks, and please introduce me when they show up.

You don't know (as I do not) the answer to Q1 or you'd have proffered it;

Yes I do, we don't know, at least empirically we don't. Philosophically or psychologically - be my guest, my fair minded original response on this thread doesn't preclude those possibilities. But I offered rationale on why that would not be rational to conclude a certain way. I still maintain that.

That's merely telling readers, don't go there, it's best just to stick your head in the sand.

Its not even close to that. Its equivalent to don't draw a conclusion before the evidence requires it or follow the evidence where it leads without prejudging it, particularly in an area as difficult, vague and perplexing as the one you proposed in your OP. Readers are big kids sock don't worry for em' that way, they'll be fine.

This question has you ultimately riled up, and you are bound and determined to hijack this thread and keep those with more knowledge from perhaps offering what they know.

Riled up?!? Huh?!? Hijacking your thread by offering my opinions, huh?!? And those with more knowledge are unable to post why? Because of my opinions? This is just ridiculous.

By asking these questions, I must have really struck a nerve in you that you feel the need to derail.

I know, my responses have just been shouting that.

Since you've said that in your opinion there is not enough information to answer Q1 and caution against anyone drawing a conclusion with respect thereto, why would you do the uncautionary thing without full knowledge to make an informed decision and act upon the 'soul' (theist) answer to the question?

I have answered this already. I will again. First, the answer is less satisfying, meaningful and valuable, my desire is the opposite of that. Second, evidentially I would require a defeater because the conclusion is not demanded from the present evidence (even probabilistic-ally), that's where empirical fact would come in Sock, before abandoning my belief regarding your OP or my theistic beliefs in God. I don't currently have a defeater. Neither do you. It seems we are left to wait for those mysterious people "in the know" to show up.

Actually, it was you that first introduced those two terms into this discussion. And I might say, Q1 is appropriately an empirically posed question and Q2 is appropriately a psychologically posed question. Good labeling by you.

Appropriately so I still maintain.

As to Q2, it might be psychologically healthy for some who need a mystical, unexplained component in their companions in life. Others may not. As to Q1, that would be answering an empirical question in a way to serve your own emotional needs.

It doesn't have to be "unexplained or mystical" - I made that plain in my original post and answer. Please re-read it. I answered the question as hypothetical as if it was known. Your reading into what I posted.

And it only serves as a line of thought that presupposes one of two alternates to the question asked. I.e., that there is a soul, separate and apart from the chemical reactions/electrical impulses. Instead of jumping to the conclusion to support the answer you want to Q1, try answering Q1 without that assumption. The way you have described Penrose/Lucas, you've merely proven that those that assume there is a separate soul can from that assumption deduce that there must be a separate soul. For if that separate soul looks at just the separate chemical reactions/electrical impulses, it will realize that it is separate. Wow.

This is an embarassingly muddled response to my posts. I am not sure you understand my answers at all. Wow is right.

You are once again conflating Q1 and Q2. The value judgment is posed by Q2, the psychological question, not Q1. Again, your bringing the psychological-empirical dichotomy to the two Qs posed in the OP was correct and helpful, but now you complain about it.

No I am not. If the question of the state of affairs regarding a soul or merely electro-chemical reactions is not known - then the answer to either one cannot be but psychological or beyond the empirical data, i.e. philosophical, meta-physical, intuited etc... Because only an empirical fact or data of facts could settle the matter. We are in personal judgment land. I am not complaining about that, I answered accordingly and appropriately.

You've done your best to hijack and derail it, fearful that there might be scientific evidence posted in response to it that would threaten the 'soul' underpinning of your theistic beliefs. You tell me, what happened to my OP?

Well I asked because you suddenly switched gears to my evidence and support for my belief in God, that wasn't within the scope of your OP. So, really you hijacked your thread and I tried to stay on topic.

You caution atheists not to draw conclusions to these questions because, without knowing, you claim that the state of scientific evidence is incomplete to draw such conclusions. Yet, in the face of your own cries (albeit uninformed) that there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion, you've done just that.

I cautioned all rational people, not just atheists. I mentioned theists and atheists a like. Please simply read what I said.

So in sum, you've drawn conclusions that there is a soul separate and apart from chemical reactions/electrical wiring,

I didn't say that in my posts, in fact I haven't anywhere defined my belief further than "something more".

a conclusion that is necessary for your theistic beliefs,

I don't even believe that, I am big Peter Van Inwagen (you can look him up, but he is theist and doesn't believe your strict conclusion is necessary) fan but haven't settled on a definite conclusion yet. I do believe were more than bags of crap.

Certainly looks like you are afraid someone in the know will post information here that will rock your belief system, and so you do not want it discussed.

I'm not trying to be snarky, its your statement. But, wouldn't it have been easier to just not visit the board at all, let alone post a response? I am just saying.

Now, since you don't have scientific knowledge to add on Q1

Conclusively no, I don't.

and you've warned others that you think they should not try to answer Q1

Yes, quite right, a veiled yet quite serious warning - nay a threat even that they should not even attempt fingers to the keyboard. My possibly rocked world depends on that insight of which I thank you.

how about letting this side rail discussion die out so that others, scientist/posters with some information weigh in?

Of course, respectfully I bid you a good night.

my regards, mikwut

[_Ceeboo]

Suggestion:

If mikwut is available (and willing, of course), perhaps he/she could offer a lecture each week for the entire MDB community.

Could be extremely beneficial to many.

Just a thought. :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_sock puppet]

Suggestion:

If mikwut is available (and willing, of course), perhaps he/she could offer a lecture each week for the entire MDB community.

Could be extremely beneficial to many.

Just a thought. :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

They'd call that a church sermon, not a lecture. Warning people against drawing a conclusion before any evidence is proffered on the topic is exactly what a sermon is. Maybe his moniker could be changed to Reverend mikwut.

[_Ceeboo]

Good evening Sock,

They'd call that a church sermon, not a lecture.

If you give me your word that you will attend (assuming he/she is willing), I'll let you call it whatever you like.

Warning people against drawing a conclusion before any evidence is proffered on the topic is exactly what a sermon is.

That is the entire message you took from all his/her contributions here?
(My respected and valued friend, sock, who I enjoy so much at MDB, you really should consider attending these potential sermons/lectures)


Peace,
Ceeboo