When does the soul enter a body?

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

While it makes for lovely parlor tricks and fantastical stories about Jedi, it simply doesn't happen in the real world.

I'm not into parlor tricks or illusion. But, I do believe telekinesis is possible.

Quote

As far as people moving artificial limbs with their thoughts, yes, that's possible, sort of, right now, but the brain has to be trained to do it and a computer is used to interpret the signals the brain puts out, but that is all still in its infancy.

It is not only possible, but we are doing it--with help [for now] perhaps but...

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Now energy potential has a specific scientific meaning, bit it's pretty ambiguous in the context you are using it and almost certainly not what you mean.

What is it you think I mean?





While I do enjoy purposeful ambiguity, I wasn't trying to here.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

While it makes for lovely parlor tricks and fantastical stories about Jedi, it simply doesn't happen in the real world.

I'm not into parlor tricks or illusion. But, I do believe telekinesis is possible.

Are you familiar with the work of James Randi?

I personally think every person should be taught slight of hand and simple magic tricks as a youngster. I think it develops a healthy amount of skepticism toward anybody claiming to have "magical" powers and ESP.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JackC 0]

Quote

What is it you think I mean?

I haven't got a clue but I doubt you mean this.

I wasn't trying to suggest that you were being deliberately ambiguous, just that ambiguity is sometimes the result of using words that have different vernacular and scientific meanings.

[PLFXpert 0]

A bit.

Admittedly, I'm a believer in possibilities. Having said that, I don't believe magicians teleport themselves (or anything else) out of the water tank whilst shackled or even whilst not shackled. Whatever.

I've simply conceded I believe telekinesis possible.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

I personally think every person should be taught slight of hand and simple magic tricks as a youngster. I think it develops a healthy amount of skepticism toward anybody claiming to have "magical" powers and ESP.

Is it your position I'm not a skeptic, or are you just making a broad statement for the benefit of everyone?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

I personally think every person should be taught slight of hand and simple magic tricks as a youngster. I think it develops a healthy amount of skepticism toward anybody claiming to have "magical" powers and ESP.

Is it your position I'm not a skeptic, or are you just making a broad statement for the benefit of everyone?

Both. One a bit more than the other, but I'll let you decide if the shoe fits or not.

I will say this, I don't think a truly skeptical person says "I believe in (insert thing here) because it may be possible," but rather, "show me the proof and then I'll believe."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

but I'll let you decide if the shoe fits or not.

If it's cute, it always fits, hunny.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

I will say this, I don't think a truly skeptical person says "I believe in (insert thing here) because it may be possible," but rather, "show me the proof and then I'll believe."

The latter for me, except if after "C".

Look--call me not "truly skeptical" or an "African-American"--it doesn't matter. I'd like to see proof before belief--and for most things I require such. But, if I (and others) did not believe some things were possible w/out proof, than what motivation would anyone have to "discover" anything new?

But, I digress. My question was whether or not any previous responder's believe a "mind" can be "created" (again, except for producing an infant--of course.)

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[JackC 0]

Quote

My question was whether or not any previous responder's believe a "mind" can be "created" (again, except for producing an infant--of course.)

That depends on your definition of mind. Take free will as an example component of what a mind could be expected to have. You could define the abstract notion of free will as:
free will exists if decisions are made (in response to external input) that are neither externally determined nor random and are not consequences of the laws of physics.

Then there is the phenomenon of free will which could be defined as: free will is displayed if the decision making appears to satisfy the abstract definition of free will.

I think it would be possible to write an algorithm that would conform to the definition for phenomenological free will. Now if you could do that, then it would be impossible to tell if anything that apparently displays free will, had actual abstract free will or simply looks like it does by displaying phenomenological free will.

So if you want to know if 'mind' can be created, you need to define what the word mind means very precisely indeed.

[quade 4]

Quote

My question was whether or not any previous responder's believe a "mind" can be "created".

Asked and answered; yes. The proof will be when it happens, but it most certainly will happen in the not too distant future. If it wasn't for certain "ethical" concerns that some people get squeamish about, it probably would have already happened.

For instance, I don't think most people are going to be too squeamish about turning off a purely electronic "mind" (although I personally find that repugnant since it would be a totally new type of life). I, on the other hand don't think I'd have too much of a problem with turning off a simple biological "mind" made out of cloned tissue (like the rat brained robot); especially if it was my own.

Quite the paradox eh?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

I think it would be possible to write an algorithm that would conform to the definition for phenomenological free will.

This is exactly what I meant previously when I said:

Quote

If we can create a mind, then all its processes would have to be known (i.e. able to be calculated), right?

My hunch is that we should be able to mathematically determine things like "free will" and thus we can create a mind.

My problem with that position, however, is--well, it just seems too easy. I want to believe there's more to it all than that, I guess.

Also, it seems to me writing an algorithm for "free will" is one thing, but understanding how the entire mind and all its working algorithms work together is another.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[JackC 0]

Quote

My problem with that position, however, is--well, it just seems too easy. I want to believe there's more to it all than that, I guess.

Like what?

I think it's far from easy to write a 'mind' algorithm but I understand your point. I think that if there is more to it than just the algorithm, then it would be necessary to define what that missing component is. If you could write an algorithm that had the appearence of being self aware, possessing free will, intelligence and whatever else you decide makes up a phenomenological 'mind', then what could you test in order to differentiate it from a real abstract mind?

[pop 0]

Quote

But, I digress. My question was whether or not any previous responder's believe a "mind" can be "created" (again, except for producing an infant--of course

Scientists have been trying to locate the mind in the brain for quite some time but with no success. If we cant locate it, how can we create it?

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I personally think every person should be taught slight of hand and simple magic tricks as a youngster. I think it develops a healthy amount of skepticism toward anybody claiming to have "magical" powers and ESP.

Is it your position I'm not a skeptic, or are you just making a broad statement for the benefit of everyone?

Both. One a bit more than the other, but I'll let you decide if the shoe fits or not.

I will say this, I don't think a truly skeptical person says "I believe in (insert thing here) because it may be possible," but rather, "show me the proof and then I'll believe."

My brother three times in his life had dreams which played out in real life within a week. How is that possible? It happened but our society has not been able to show proof for these types of things, because you cant really quantify these events. Science is designed to measure and experiment. How the hell do you measure a dream? We can pinpoint where chemicals for dreams are made - pineal gland. We can show figures about the chemicals that are firing during sleep - melatonin, DMT. But none of these figures explain the contents of a dream.

And I agree...healthy amount of skepticism is good!!! If we didnt question things these forums would be BORING!!!!

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

I think that your question presupposes the "soul" exists. Something there is no evidence of at all.

I would say that your soul is your mind. But I would also say that your mind and your brain aren't necesarily the same thing.

Mind is a product of the brain.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

If we dont have a soul, then why arent we all the same? Even identical twins, with the exact same genetic makeup, have differences. There is an extra ingredient thrown in there somewhere, right?

Their differences arise from having different life experience. Theoretically, if they had the exact same experiences, they would be indistinguishable. Genes, environment, and brain - the triad that makes you. Even identical twins can only match on 1 of 3.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Prove to me or at least point me to even one scientific study proving/shows that the chemical and electrical impulses are NOT a mere representation of the state of your consciousness, which IS your driving force.

Are you familiar with the concept of attempting to prove a negative proposition?

It's a basic logic issue and essentially comes down to, "it can't be done".

For instance, if you ask me to PROVE that little green mean in UFOs have NEVER visited the planet earth, there's actually no way anyone can do that. Science can't "prove" something didn't happen, only something did happen. It does that by looking at evidence.

There is currently no evidence the soul exists. It can't be measured or tested for. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but it is not something that science prove at this point, therefore most scientists would simply state that, there is no evidence to support any theory that a soul exists.

If you're a different kind of scientist and see the world with an alternative viewpoint, I would propose you design an experiment and see if you can define what a soul is and how to test for its existence. People have tried before. There is a fairly famous experiment where one scientist attempted to measure the "weight" of the soul as it leaves the body. It was pretty bogus but . . . hey . . . at least it was an attempt.

Check it out; http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

I'd say that brain injury is fairly good evidence against the idea of a soul. Significant brain damage definitely changes a persons personality, or even destroys it completely whereas damage to other parts of the body does not. Even an induced chemical imbalance in the brain can have a significant effect

Just because the vehicle is damaged does not mean there is anything wrong with the driver. Take Stephen Hawkins as an example. Thanks to technology we can bypass the physical, and get to the non-tangible aspect of a human.

Can you quantify origins of a thought? (no one has yet

Where you been? There are armies of scientists studying the mind - which is output from the brain. Google on the topic and read a few summaries from journals in the field.

Couching the whole world in your own lack of knowledge is more than a logical falacy - it is the propogation of ignorance.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

While it makes for lovely parlor tricks and fantastical stories about Jedi, it simply doesn't happen in the real world.

I'm not into parlor tricks or illusion. But, I do believe telekinesis is possible.

Quote

As far as people moving artificial limbs with their thoughts, yes, that's possible, sort of, right now, but the brain has to be trained to do it and a computer is used to interpret the signals the brain puts out, but that is all still in its infancy.

It is not only possible, but we are doing it--with help [for now] perhaps but...

If you believe in telekenesis, please raise my hand.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I personally think every person should be taught slight of hand and simple magic tricks as a youngster. I think it develops a healthy amount of skepticism toward anybody claiming to have "magical" powers and ESP.

Is it your position I'm not a skeptic, or are you just making a broad statement for the benefit of everyone?

Both. One a bit more than the other, but I'll let you decide if the shoe fits or not.

I will say this, I don't think a truly skeptical person says "I believe in (insert thing here) because it may be possible," but rather, "show me the proof and then I'll believe."

Definitely not a skeptic. A skeptic would at the least require a working theory for the mechanics behind the phenomenon.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

I'd like to see proof before belief--and for most things I require such. But, if I (and others) did not believe some things were possible w/out proof, than what motivation would anyone have to "discover" anything new?

Your mixing, and in my opinion only, intentionally being ambiguous.

The motivations to experiment and explore are not dependent on existing proofs.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

My brother three times in his life had dreams which played out in real life within a week. How is that possible? It happened but our society has not been able to show proof for these types of things, because you cant really quantify these events. Science is designed to measure and experiment. How the hell do you measure a dream? We can pinpoint where chemicals for dreams are made - pineal gland. We can show figures about the chemicals that are firing during sleep - melatonin, DMT. But none of these figures explain the contents of a dream.

And I agree...healthy amount of skepticism is good!!! If we didnt question things these forums would be BORING!!!!

Which, depending on his age, probably means he has had hundreds, maybe thousands of weeks when his dreams did not play out. Kind of takes the oogie-boogie out of it, huh?

Events quantified.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Who said there is a soul?

BTW how are you Pop? I have been thinking about you and your family since this Russian/Georgian debacle broke out.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think that your question presupposes the "soul" exists. Something there is no evidence of at all.

I would say that your soul is your mind. But I would also say that your mind and your brain aren't necesarily the same thing.

Mind is a product of the brain.

prove it. is a driver the product of a car or does the car run simply because it has a driver behind the wheel?

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Prove to me or at least point me to even one scientific study proving/shows that the chemical and electrical impulses are NOT a mere representation of the state of your consciousness, which IS your driving force.

Are you familiar with the concept of attempting to prove a negative proposition?

It's a basic logic issue and essentially comes down to, "it can't be done".

For instance, if you ask me to PROVE that little green mean in UFOs have NEVER visited the planet earth, there's actually no way anyone can do that. Science can't "prove" something didn't happen, only something did happen. It does that by looking at evidence.

There is currently no evidence the soul exists. It can't be measured or tested for. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but it is not something that science prove at this point, therefore most scientists would simply state that, there is no evidence to support any theory that a soul exists.

If you're a different kind of scientist and see the world with an alternative viewpoint, I would propose you design an experiment and see if you can define what a soul is and how to test for its existence. People have tried before. There is a fairly famous experiment where one scientist attempted to measure the "weight" of the soul as it leaves the body. It was pretty bogus but . . . hey . . . at least it was an attempt.

Check it out; http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

I'd say that brain injury is fairly good evidence against the idea of a soul. Significant brain damage definitely changes a persons personality, or even destroys it completely whereas damage to other parts of the body does not. Even an induced chemical imbalance in the brain can have a significant effect

Just because the vehicle is damaged does not mean there is anything wrong with the driver. Take Stephen Hawkins as an example. Thanks to technology we can bypass the physical, and get to the non-tangible aspect of a human.

Can you quantify origins of a thought? (no one has yet

Where you been? There are armies of scientists studying the mind - which is output from the brain. Google on the topic and read a few summaries from journals in the field.

Couching the whole world in your own lack of knowledge is more than a logical falacy - it is the propogation of ignorance.

Calling me ignorant doesnt support your stance. Psychology is an example of how we study the mind, but when you ask what is a mind, how does it develop, where does it originate and where is it located you never get the same answer from two people. We do not have answers to those questions and quite often we do not have a way to get to them. Can you point out where the mind is located? I know where your physical self originates - sperm and egg, but since we cant pin point where the mind is, we cannot confidently say that it too originates from the sperm and an egg. If we cannot be sure about its origins, then we cannot be confident in saying what it actually is.

We can study how the mind reacts, but we cannot study what it is.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer