I might do that if the situation calls for baseless speculation, but I certainly wouldn’t pick one of those fantasies over the default position if there were no evidence for said fantasy.
Yes, it is. But I think when it comes to this topic it is unwarranted.
Sure, you can observe a dead body, see that there are no brain waves or chemical processes going on and say, “That’s it. He’s gone.”
They’re right. That is the evidence. But it doesn’t explain anything. It doesn’t explain the animating factor that gives consciousness and emotion in the first place. They say that it’s the simply the brain and biology that gives us these qualities, but like I said before, I think thats simply equating the human body to a machine. We know that machines don’t have consciousness or emotion.
So I think that they’re evidence is rather weak. Consciousness, seems to be a very unique capability, that is not sufficiently explained through biology.
It explains exactly what it is supposed to explain. It doesn’t address a broader metaphysical question because that’s not the question being asked.
The evidence says that’s exactly where those things come from. There’s no need to introduce another element (the soul) that complicates the picture further without any actual evidence. I get that you find this more pleasing on some level, but there’s no reason to think this is the case.
The mind and the body can be compared to a machine in some ways: they take in energy and do things. In other ways they are different. You logically can’t go from that difference to “therefore soul.”
Only biological things have consciousness - more specifically biological organisms with brains. How is biology insufficient?
Why?
I’ve said this before in this thread, but if you ram a spike through someone’s head, the way they think is changed.
Drugs and sleep deprivation can alter the way you think. If your consciousness was an immortal floating immaterial thing, why does mucking with your brain alter the way you think, and remember?
It shouldn’t. The fact is that when we damage a brain and some of it dies it changes the way someone thinks. And more and more capacity and knowledge is lost as the amount of damage increases. That certainly doesn’t suggest that when the brain is utterly destroyed, all ability jumps back to full.
That’s utterly nonsensical. It’s like saying that lifting things gets harder the more muscle I cut out of your arms. But once they’re just hanging tatters of bones, you’ll be as strong as ever.
Well, biology is unsufficient because it doesn’t explain consciousness. Also, I think it fails to make a clear distinction between machine and living, conscious being. Biology can explain the anatomy, pathways, and chemical processes taking place in your body but how is that different from a mechanic explaining how a car engine runs?
You say that the machine and body are similar in some ways, but different in others, but that does not mean therefore “soul” because that’s not a logical step.
But we still have an unexplained gap. What is a logical step to take from there? Or, from a purely rhetorical, theoretical standpoint, why is the concept of soul an illogical step?
In what way?
That’s because you’re asking a question of philosophy, not biology. Maybe that’s the problem here.
Right. But this is looking at it from a purely physical standpoint and ignoring the unique capability of consciousness. If the brain dies, so does the body. That’s quite clear. But where did consciousness come from in the first place? If an engineer designed a simulation of a human body perfectly and gave it the energy to run, would that give it consciousness? Or would it simply be a machine? If it couldn’t achieve consciousness (which I believe is the case), does that imply a missing element?
The fact that consciousness is evident and unexplainable throws a wrench in the idea that we are nothing more than our bodies.
Does a chicken have a soul? A dog? The differences between us and animals are of capacity not kind. We are a hyper-specialized animal. The fact that damaging a brain damages consciousness, is direct evidence that one produces the other.
If I am unconvinced that you and your shadow are related, I can cut pieces off of you and look for the corresponding pieces missing from your shadow. Same thing with consciousness. I can zap part of your brain and destroy your vision. Not just what you see, but the visual components of your memories. Zap another part and you lose the ability to control your anger. Another and you lose language. Another and you lose control of your feet.
The more you damage a brain, the more capability you lose. Yet you assert that if I destroy your brain outright, you get all that capability back? That’s just silly.
Well, Science isn’t giving us a clear answer and I doubt they ever will. Still, people want answers, it’s only natural. So what choice do we have? I don’t see philosophizing over this as a problem, in fact, it’s about the only choice we have at this time.
Yes. Yes. In another form.
Sure, there is no evidence (verifiable by the scientific method) but I’m saying that it’s literally impossible to establish any. All that we can go on is the fact that new organisms are constantly being created as unique, thinking, emotional beings. Consciousness distinguishes us from a mere machine. So there is obviously some factor there at play that we just don’t understand. Is that not evidence? I call it a soul, but it seems you deny that it exists?
So what?
Why should I borrow consciousness from a past life if it’s clear that I have it already?
I repeat: the OP didn’t mention consciousness.
Perhaps consciousness is more than the sum of the knowledge you can access immediately. If it isn’t, biology can explain it pretty well. If it is, well, what does it matter?
The matter is: memory from a past life.
There’s nothing wrong with philosophizing. On the other hand if you criticize biology or neurology for failing to answer philosophical questions and then using that failure as evidence for souls and reincarnation, you’re kind of playing a shell game. Biology and neurology provide some evidence we can use in discussing this issue, and to the extent they do, it don’t help people arguing for souls and ghosts and reincarnation. Your theory about energy doesn’t pass scientific muster either. There are limits to how far science can go in answering rhetorical questions, but you can’t jump back and forth over that line by using that limit as evidence for a factual proposition.
But philosophizing over it isn’t giving us any verifiably true answers, either. “The Soul” isn’t an answer or explanation, it’s a handwave of the problem.
I want to say that I’m not anti-science in any way. I can fully attest to the fact that we can credit science with every single discovery, breakthrough, and modern convenience we have in the world today.
I just think that consciousness, in and of itself, is evidence for “something” that we don’t understand. I don’t think biology or neurology can give us a clear answer on this concept because it’s not something we can measure. Nor will it ever.
I call it a soul as a frame of reference. It seems that you deny this concept exists entirely? It seems that you suggest the only reason we experience consciousness is because of our brain and body?
Yet, science cannot adequately explain consciousness beyond the purely physical and chemical processes taking place. Something I alluded to earlier, that if you were able to mimic the human body perfectly in every way, I still doubt it would produce consciousness. So you say that Science doesn’t help my argument, but I think it does. It shows us a gap that cannot be explained.
Sure, that doesn’t necessarily imply “soul.” But what else could it be?
What can’t we measure? We can measure all sorts of neurological activity associated with consciousness, for example.
Yes and yes.
What’s your evidence that there’s anything beyond the physical and chemical taking place?
It doesn’t show a gap. You’re proposing a hypothetical, saying what you would think would happen in that hypothetical, and saying that proves you’re right. Why should we agree with this hypothetical?
It’s this little bit at the center of your argument I’m not buying. It reminds me of religionists that try to get others to admit that there is a god by trying to label the universe as just another word for their deity, then trying to shoehorn their god’s attributes into what used to just be called “the universe”. The difference here is that you are trying to shoehorn your “soul” concept onto something that hasn’t even been shown to exist. Show us the missing piece first, then we try to figure out what the attributes are, then we start trying to figure out what to call it. What you are attempting to do here is bass akwards.
Yeah, I guess you’re right. I have no evidence and I’m making nothing but baseless speculations.
I’m an atheist and I believe in evolution too. I still can’t seem to wrap my head around the idea that we are nothing more than our brains and bodies.
I am at least 10% chicken and 10% beef (out of dry weight). I don’t know how plants count, but sure, taking into account the meaning of “carne” I’m quite reincarnated.
You are kidding me, right?
Maybe you should check out the following:
Currently, there are all kinds of scientists working in the area of brain and consciousness studies. Each is working on a small piece of a very large jig saw puzzle. As each piece falls into place, the overall picture becomes more clear.
Obviously, when sufficient pieces have fallen into place, the questions of “what is consciousness” , “how does it arise”, and “does consciousness continue after death” will be answered.
The irony here is that when these studies are called neuro-biology or some similar sciency sounding title, nobody gets too excited.
However, when the exact same studies are called “parapsychology” or “after death studies” or “woo”, the scientific community goes into conniption fits.
Clearly, it’s all in the packaging.
No, it’s just that actual science produces results and woo is a bunch of silly people thinking up random ideas without bothering to test them.
We can be very confident that consciousness doesn’t continue after death. If you were to destroy someone’s brain a cubic millimeter at a time, they would lose more and more function until eventually they died.
They aren’t going to regain that function suddenly after the brain is completely gone. That’s absurd. It’s literally asking people to believe that damage alters consciousness but destruction doesn’t.