It’s a non-factual experience of a conversation. It’s a factual experience of the dream, of various chemical events in the brain, of memory, etc.
Then I stand by my statement that there is no reason to believe in a soul.
Nope. You’re doing a lekatt on me.
And you’re wrong. Millions and millions of people believe silly things. Are you saying that every widespread belief has validity simply due to the number of chumps believing it? I certainly think that you’ll find more people believing trees produce oxygen than people believing they don’t. Is that evidence in favor of trees producing oxygen?
While we’re on the subject, I’ll post another question in the “rain forests, oxygen and carbon” thread in a few minutes. Would you mind taking a look?
It’s close. I’d like to add something about pointing towards a particular conclusion or judgment, but let’s stick with this.
I disagree. May I ask what your conclusion is concerning the existence of thunder gods?
However, I have found that the most often used sense of “anecdotal evidence” is to choose a number of cases proving your point and ignoring the rest, so the expression is unsuitable for the purpose that you and I have been using it.
Even so, two things hold water in science: observation and reason, and of those two, observation outranks reason. Nothing else. What criteria of evidence does “millions of people believe it!” meet?
That was my sole point. What else it may be an experience of is irrelevant so long as we have established that I can have a non-factual experience.
I’m sure you do, but that’s just an assertion, not reasoning or fact. I stand by my statement that there is.
You are attempting a strawman here. We are not discussing validity of these beliefs. We are discussing whether there is evidence for these beliefs.
Of course it is. This is the second time I’ve answered an almost identical question of his type. Will there be many more?
I have had no other experiences that confirm or deny their existence. I remain open minded until further notice.
You say that that millions of unrelated people all claiming to have experienced the same thing is not helpful to you in forming a conclusion or judgment concerning the existence of that thing. Can I ask what you would do on jury duty if only 50 people claimed to have seen a thing? Would you also conclude that their testimony was unhelpful I reaching a conclusion? What would you need to reach a conclusion if not 50 witnesses?
If I may extend the analogies. You arrive in another universe. You know this universe has its own rules unrelated to our own. You have no workable conceptions of how this universe works. You know that many of the rules that apply to this universe don’t apply here. Every single sentient being you speak to tells you he has seen a dragon, or that he has personally spoken to someone who has seen a dragon.
Does this help you make a decision on the existence of dragon’s? If not, why not?
The website you referenced doesn’t at any point say that anecdotal evidence is not evidence. If this was your intent then it has failed. If this wasn’t your intent then what was the point of posting the reference.
So you’re saying that you have evidence that points to the existence of thunder gods, and no evidence that points to the non-existence of thunder gods, and yet you do not profess belief in thunder gods?
What are they claiming to have experienced? You’ve so far spoken only of their beliefs. Show me records of identical experiences of people without contact with each other, that point to the existence of “the spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state”. Having seen this, I can form an opinion of it. Before posting those records, stop to think if there are other, more plausible, explanations.
Totally different. If 50 witnesses saw a man shooting another man, that is evidence. Similar events are well-documented, all variables act according to known factors. If 50 witnesses, independently from each other, see yellow pixies, then a radical new element (yellow pixies) is introduced, and I’d rather look into possibilities of hallucinations. Sure, I may eventually reach the conclusion that there are yellow pixies, and that they for some reason chose to reveal themselves simultaneously to 50 people, but I’ll need evidence.
The factor that I’m in another universe of which I have absolutely no knowledge obviously changes the situation radically. Yes, I would assume that that universe contains dragons until I had amassed more evidence.
It does say that anecdotal evidence doesn’t “cut it”. Good enough for me.
It’s intended to show that widespread beliefs, no matter how old or widespread, aren’t evidence.
I’m slowly beginning to suspect why we have this problem understanding each other. Blake, do you somehow feel that science is useless, entirely or partially so, when it comes to determining the existence of a soul?
Are you seriously saying that you aren’t aware that all people have or until recently had a belief in an afterlife?
If that’s the case then I have no intention of digging through reams of literature on various cultures to provide you this information. I will just say that you are so lacking in the most basic information on this subject that you should reconsider your participation in a debate on the topic.
Beyond that, you have already answered my question. You say ‘Having seen this, I can form an opinion of it’. In saying this you admit that such information would be helpful to you in forming an opinion on the subject. That is sufficient. You have admitted that it meets the agreed definition of evidence. You have admitted that such information would be evidence even without having seen it.
So you are retreating form your position that anecdotal evidence is evidence?
So again you say that anecdotal evidence is evidence.
That’s all I needed to hear. We both concur that anecdotal evidence is evidence. We have anecdotal evidence of souls, thus we have evidence of souls. You can retract your statement that we have no evidence of souls at any point now.
No it doesn’t. You are deliberately misquoting that site. Please quote the sentence where that site says that anecdotal evidence doesn’t cut it as evidence. If you can’t do so then please retract this statement.
And that is an out and out strawman. I am not appealing to either. I am citing them as evidence. I suggest you read those links.
Please quote where I have ever said anything even remotely like “Most people approve of the soul (have favorable emotions towards X). Therefore the soul is true.”
Please quote where I have ever said anything even remotely like ”belief in the soul is old or traditional Therefore belief in the soul is correct or better.
If you can’t do so then I will ask you to retract this statement as well
If you cannot understand the difference between presenting a fact as evidence and appealing to that fact then I will explain it to you. You need only ask. In the meantime please stop these strawmen.
And how dose quoting the primary principals of science or the eight pillars of Bhuddism or the three core strengths of Christianity show any such thing? You really need to build an argument around these things. I really can’t see any relevance at all.
I take this to mean that you agree with these three points (note that I do not agree with all of them):
There is evidence that thunder gods exist.
There is no evidence that thunder gods don’t exist.
You don’t profess belief in thunder gods.
Am I correct, or did I misunderstand you?
No, as I’m sure you well know. However, I do not accept belief as evidence. You did say “experiences”, I wish to hear about those experiences.
Information about the experiences upon which their belief is based, yes. Not the beliefs themselves, as you have said.
No, I’m not. For starters, a courtroom situation is different from trying to ascertain an objective truth about the existence of the soul. For seconds, I have no reason to doubt the witnesses. The easiest explanation is that this guy shot that guy.
No. In the tortured example you provide, I have no reason not to believe in dragons.
The first sentence of the body:
You have said the equivalent of “Many people believe in the soul. That is evidence of the soul”. Appeal to popularity. Skip the appeal to tradition for now.
Below, you agree that science is useful in determining the existence of the soul. From that follows that the primary principles of science are of interest in determining the existence of the soul. If the primary principles of science are observation and reason, then those are of interest in determining the existence of the soul. Right?
That was interesting JoeRandom; now that you guys have resurrected it, I actually do kinda like that descriptive paragraph I started with, even though I’m not poetic. If you haven’t experienced any of those phenomena, then I can understand why you would say you don’t have spiritual experiences. I hope that one of these days you run into someone who can guide your way (if you’re still interested in trying). On the other hand, there are plenty of things that I’ve never understood & likely never will, so perhaps this is one of those for you.
I’m going to have to take some time next week & really read all of this again. But I was thinking about you guys last night while Hubby and I were playing pool, which we both do quite badly, and here’s what occurred to me.
By your definition of empirical verification, one can only “know” events that have already happened & thus yielded objective evidence, and never those that are going to happen.
You can’t know what you’re going to do, or even know what you’re doing; you can’t know how the movie’s going to end or the lyrics to a song, or what someone’s going to give you for Christmas; you can’t really know what you want, only what you received; you can’t know when to hold 'em & when to fold 'em & you certainly can’t know the sun is going to come out tomorrow. You actually can’t know that you’re going to die, if it relies on yielded objective evidence.
How is a person supposed to manage their life that way? We don’t go around saying “I believe I’m going to live next week & therefore I’ll make plans to go to the movies with you.” We know intangible things all the time; we even know what we know & what we don’t know, hopefully. What about knowing that you used to know something that you no longer know - totally unprovable, but real.
I never said a person doesn’t use empirical experiences to verify the spiritual - one can act on knowledge received in prayer (or in therapy for that matter) and prove its efficacy - or lack thereof, depending on the person and the instance.
One can also use spiritual experiences to verify the empirical, praying and being guided by a sense of presence in figuring out what you know about what you saw - perhaps useful for people who’ve witnessed atrocities.
Sometimes people are wrong about what they know spiritually and emotionally - people are wrong about what they know empirically all the time. Two people describing a car accident or store robbery describe different events.
As to proving a specific soul entity, rather than just a mysterious unnamed “It” that could also be the Easter Bunny - I’d suggest that shared phenomena documented for 5,000 years is the empirical answer. Commonality of experience, a consensus; a language people have agreed upon to explain phenomena they’ve experienced. People agree on a reality and construct an explanation that serves them because they experience it as “true”. Isn’t that the same as mathematics? An abstract field of endeavor that explains phenomena and correlates with individual empirical experiences? People have to be taught math, how to understand it, how to think about it; some people are really good at it, others never get it. I realize that at most levels math results are much more consistent and predictable, but soul results are meaningful in that they direct future action and interpretation of experience, so really they’re just different. Their different uses don’t negate on another.
Yes, you can point to math - you can also point to the effect the soul has had. Take a look at the work done by members of a church.
And, hey, I saw “perceived” in your knowledge definition. Spirituality definitely qualifies there.
Priceguy you spook me out - you don’t have emotional knowledge? You don’t know that you love those kids whose heroin use you fear?
Gotta go back & read what Blake was saying, I’m intrigued. I know I’m intrigued, but I can’t point to it.
Shoot - I meant to include a bit about illusionists in there. What about when you know that your eyes are deceiving you, that the magician couldn’t have done what they appear to have done because your reason tells you otherwise? Reliance on intangible knowledge of the empirically unprovable (unless you mug the magician or something). Isn’t that how people get ripped off by con artists, they pay attention to their senses and not their reason?
Correct. However, you can always use probabilities to make educated guesses about what’s going to happen.
You can’t know any of these things with absolute certainty, no. Free will; it’s a bitch. However, you can know what you’re planning to do, and since this will usually influence future events you can make a pretty good guess about what will happen.
Not straight out, no, but it’s implied. If I say “I’ll go to the movies with you next week”, there’s really a lot implied in that statement, such as “if I’m alive at that time”. There’s just no point in listing all the caveats.
The difference is that mathematics has a practical application which, at the same time, tests mathematics. Untestable hypotheses, such as the existence of the soul, have no value.
Even if I accept that religion has done more good than harm throughout history, that proves nothing about the soul.
In your opinion, not in mine. You perceive an emotion of some kind and then, unsupportedly, deduce that there is a soul, a god, whatever. You should have stuck with the emotion.
We’re using different definitions of important terms, so there’s not much point in me answering this question. You have a meaning attached to “emotional knowledge” that you take for granted, whereas I maintain that there is only one kind of knowledge.
No matter how many times I read this, it seems to prove my point. How does this point to the existence of a soul?
Your opinion, your experience; not the experience of others. Spirituality has had plenty of practical applications in guiding people.
If someone creates an event and you don’t know the stimuli that prompts the event and they tell you “x” is what prompted it, then “x” exists, at least for them. Your lack of knowledge about “x” doesn’t disprove it.
BTW, no, I won’t say that religion has done more good than harm.
I think I can understand why you would say that. And it does link to the illusionists.
Some of us experience such a wide range of emotions and feelings with amazing depth that another mechanisms is needed to explain them. They’re way out of the everyday, way out of the ordinary range - in fact, they can get in the way of functional life. Sometimes they’re counterproductive, or at least would be if one’s life wasn’t equipped to handle them. And no, not everyone shares them; some people are quite skeptical. But those of us for whom it’s part of life can agree, to a large extent, on a description of our experiences.
Reason dictates that the experiences can’t be attributed to the work of a material illusionist, believing so would make a person vulnerable to their exploitation (which is why I’m not fond of religions). So it makes sense to posit a third entity of a nonmaterial nature.
And what I’ve described as my path to spirituality is by no means the only one, or a universal experience of all spiritual people - for example, some folks are struck by a particular event whose meaning can only be understood via spiritual knowledge.
It’s not that different a shorthand than your acknowledged non-empirical experience of “knowing” things that haven’t yet happened.
Exactly! We are only interested in the fact that we are trying to establish the veracity of! The entire point that I was trying to make is that observation alone is enough for you to know that the observation exists. Yes, it’s unavoidably tautological. You have to hit the base case somewhere. What I’m suggesting is fundamentally different than “It’s turtles all the way down”. It’s more like “The earth exists in space. What’s space exist in? Nothing. It just is”. I’m saying that observations just are, and need no further justification.
Do you propose otherwise? Would you suggest that, simply because you feel afraid is not enough to know that you feel afraid? To state that would be to admit that your previous statement of “I just know that the sock puppets are going to hurt me” was false. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t question my use of defining knowledge without supporting evidence of you do the same thing.
Oh, and for the record, I never implied that experiencing an emotional state was “factual”, since I never defined what the word “factual” actually means. I do not use the terms “knowledge” and “fact” interchangably.
Sigh I obviously failed to get my point across, even after I spent so much time explaining it. As I stated before, I never once defined knowledge in terms of “facts” or what is “factual”. Indeed, I never even defined what one would mean by the concept of “factual”. I even explicity stated as much. As far as I’m concerned, facts don’t even enter into the equation at this point.
I defined knowledge as an axiom system. If you insist that an axiom system falls to the True Scotsman fallacy, then you must likewise fail to believe that mathematics is valid, since it is based on an axiom system.
You can make the claim, but if the claim is unfounded, then you must realize that it is a belief and not knowledge.
Never once have I mentioned “facts” or “factual” except to say that the concept of what a “fact” might be is undefined and unnecessary in my system of determining what is and is not knowledge. In fact (heh) I explicitly stated that knowledge can be completely opposed to facts and still be valid knowledge.
I hope you can re-address this issue without using the word “facts”, since that concept is not part of my argument. What, exactly, is the problem with using an axiom system? How is an axiom system circular? Is math invalid because it’s circular? Yes, I know that it’s a blanket statement with no proof; that’s what axiom systems are.
It is flat out impossible to obtain knowledge without observation of some sort. People who gained “knowledge” from priests and shaman observed the priest or shaman talking. If they had a valid reason to conclude that what the priest or shaman said was correct, then what they observed them to say was fact.
I’m afraid that I have to differ with you. I created my axiom sysstem with the sole purpose of defining what is and is not knowledge. Please tell me how it fails to mesh with the real world. Your above statements about priests and shaman shows that you misunderstand what I mean by the term “observation”.
It is an observation which contradicts your knowledge of what sock puppets are and what they are capable of doing. Either you can know that the sock puppets will harm you, or you can know that they will not harm you. Knowledge cannot contradict other knowledge; one of them must fail.
That is just a circular as you claim my axiom system to be.
“There are two types of knowledge, and we know this because, well, here are examples of two different types of knowledge that show that there are two different types. We know them to be two different types because there are two different types of knowledge.”
What criteria might that be? From whence comes these criteria? How do we know that they’re valid? You must eventually make an assertion that cannot be backed up, just as I was forced to do.
Again you throw in the concept of factual. Facts have nothing to do with whether or not something is knowledge. The only thing needed to make something knowledge is consistancy with other observations and other knowledge.
Of course not! That fits perfectly with the axioms I suggested. Your claim is consistant with observation.
Why is it pointless? I have simply claimed that anything that does not fit with my definition of knowledge is belief. To roughly restate the axioms, if something is not consistant with everything else that you know and observe, then it is not knowledge, but belief.
As far as definitions are concerned, my axioms fit pefectly with the dictionary definition of knowledge:
2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
That fits with my axioms where consistant observations result in knowledge.
(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
This is more of a generic type of knowledge, based on already having prior knowledge.
b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something
This fits perfectly with my statement that you know when you are afraid. You always have innate knowledge that you are observing something when you make an observation.
**(2) : the range of one’s information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> **
Fits with my statement that knowledge need not be based on fact, but merely on what you already know.
c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION
Again, this fits with my assertion that you can aquire knowedge by applying reasoning to current knowledge and new observations.
d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a man of unusual knowledge>
If you have lots of information, then you have knowledge. That seems self-evident to me.
As you can see, I am not using any specific, scientific definition of knowledge. I am using the, standard, dictionary definition.
What makes you think that those emotions are any different or any deeper than what someone like me feels? Yes, emotions can be strong. Yes, they can sometimes be overwhelming. For all you know, I have experienced emotions just as deep (or even deeper) than yours. The fact that I don’t postulate a different mechanism for those emotions doesn’t mean they’re not deep. It just means that I have a different view on how things like emotions work.
As an example, we all feel pain from time to time. I’m talking about physical pain here: a stubbed toe, a paper cut, any of a plethora of minor injuries that one can experience. Someone who sufferes third-degree burns is going to experience pain that is much deeper and much more overwhelming than anything than people experience normally. Do you propose that they are experiencing that pain via a different mechanism than normal? Is this maybe some sort of “soul pain” or something.
I was also thinking about the movie Memento because the protagonist had empirical experiences but no accumulated intangible knowledge of reality with which to link them, which rendered the experiences meaningless. And thus open to any interpretation. I don’t think you can deny that belief, faith and knowledge are constantly dancing with our experiences of empirical reality to create who we are.
Neither have I experienced schizophrenia. Yet I don’t attribute schizophrenia to the existance of some unknown factor that is similiar to a soul. The mind is capable of doing extraordinary things without the necessity of other, ill defined entities to explain them.
Here’s where I stand. Emotions are known to originate in the brain, in as much as emotions are correlated with certain brain activity, and artificially inducing similiar brain activity causes the subject to feel the associated emotion. With this knowledge, I see no reason to create the notion of a soul to explain particularly strong emotions.
Also, it has been shown that stimulating the temporal lobes can cause people to experience religious hallucinations. This would indicate that at least part of what people normally describe as spirituality is actually caused within the brain, and has no need for the hypothesis of a soul.
I guess what I’m getting at is that practically everything that we experience is known to either be from direct sensory input (sight, sound, touch, etc.) or from normal, or abnormal, brain activity (emotions, certain types of religious experiences, hearing voices induced by scizophrenia, etc.). Based on this, why is there a need to introduce the concept of a soul to explain the few things that we still can’t pin down?
Didn’t someone address the issue of “the existence of receptors not disproving existence of item to be received” earlier? That experiment seems to me to corroborate my argument. You wanna see something objective? Here it is.
And I don’t find spirituality to be ill-defined. I personally know quite a few people, have read a number of books, that corroborate and expand my experiences, knowledge and understanding.
I think there is also a qualitative difference between “emotions” that correspond to our feelings and spiritual reality, which is a sense of existence/phenomena/knowledge beyond emotions. For me anyway that’s true.
You know, I didn’t get algebra at all - but I loved geometry. Western religions aren’t the only available means of gaining spiritual knowledge. To me the Eastern ones make more sense.
I guess I’ve been a little too enthusiastic with all this, so I wasn’t as clear as I might have been.
I’m not saying that souls don’t exist. I am simply trying to show that there is no real reason to think that souls do exist, either. There’s not enough evidence either way.
I don’t know about you, but I take the stance that things that have no evidence for their existance can be assumed not to exist until such time that more evidence is found. I could end up being wrong, but you have to admit that the world would be a hectic and confusing place if everyone assumed that whatever they wanted to exist did exist, simply because it couldn’t be disproven.
Our stances do seem to be different, Mr. Random, because I’m always trying to find what new thing I might observe and learn & am willing to suspend my disbelief if I think there might be an interesting adventure at hand. Sometimes they don’t pan out, but I enjoy the process. I’m not an engineer, I wouldn’t want me designing buildings or flying planes or performing surgery; my approach serves who I am.
There’s a wonderful quote in Terms of Endearment by Larry McMurtry, which BTW is a much better book than the movie. Aurora says “Understanding is overrated; mystery is underrated. Keep that in mind and you’ll live a more interesting life.”
Now the more I think about it, the more your assertion
demonstrates the reality of spiritual experiences. Our brains process an experience of sight, sight exists, sight is a real experience of something outside of ourselves. We wouldn’t say sight is “caused” in the brain. Isn’t our brain designed to process experiences, and doesn’t that processing capacity (as clearly demonstrated in the experiment you cite) indicate the likelihood that those experiences exist?
It is a slippery slope, one has to learn how to handle their spiritual experiences, one has to learn to distinguish between spiritual knowledge and wishful thinking - it’s all about developing self-knowledge, and knowledge of an Other. Reality checks help, research into the subject helps - although you have to watch out for the charlatans who pose in religious clothing. Going back to the event/person/place that catalyzed the experience helps - I haven’t even talked about music, how it transports me, that’s the easiest route. And it helps to develop an awareness of your own soul.
I’m with you as far as looking for new things to observe and learn, and I believe that suspending disbelief to some extent is important, as it allows you to at least entertain notions that seem to contradict what you already know. However, when I suspend disbelief, it’s not the same thing as actually believing. Are you saying that you actually believe everything that you consider, and then stop believing when things don’t pan out? Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant.
I can actually agree with that to some extent. To me, it’s not the understanding that’s interesting, it reaching the understanding that’s interesting. It’s not the mystery that’s fun, it’s unraveling the mystery that’s fun.
Understanding and mystery by themselves are boring, though, because they’re static. Change is what makes life interesting (to me, anyway).
Oh, I never argued that the experiences themselves don’t exist. It’s obvious to me that they do exist. The question is whether or not those experiences are purely self-contained, or if they’re indicitave of something external. I’m of the opinion that spiritual experiences are as self-contained as things like emotions and rational thought.
I suppose that we’re always going to disagree on that point, though. So, if I might change the subject for a moment, could I ask how you became aware of this entity/feeling/whatever that you call a soul? Were you raised in any particularly religious or spiritual environment? Was there a sudden revelation?
I’ll give you a little info on my own situation: I was not raised in a religious family (well, other than my grandparents). You could probably say that my parents were a bit spiritual, but not too much. I was always told that I had to make up my own mind about religion, and reach my own conclusions. It was only my grandparents who were ever overtly religious – I always went to church with my grandmother whenever I stayed with her as a child.
As a result of my upbringing, I feel that I was able to look at religious and spiritual things from an outsider’s point of view, and get a more objective understanding of it. I even tried to be religious at one point, but I couldn’t see any benifits to it, only wasted effort.
If ‘soul’ is equated with consciousness and ‘consciousness’ cannot be observed, that might be an indication that there is something else to who or what we are.
If I am the awareness and awareness cannot be found in the world of observable things (and thoughts) then there is no observable ‘self’ in the world of observable things.
As such perceptions such as seeing appear to have no basis, they appear to come out of nowhere or nothing. That is to say seeing does come out of nothing (observable), i.e. the awareness. (or more correctly IS the awareness)
So the world appears to arise from nothing because the awareness of it cannot be observed. There’s no one (observable) behind these eyes looking out.
Yet this awareness IS me hence I appear to be nothing, or emptiness, or void, since I am nowhere (to be found), no thing and no one. The spot I occupy is empty, so to speak.
When I say there is nobody to do the observing, or when others( eastern philosophers, sages) talk about no-self this is what is meant, that there is only ‘observing’, meaning the ‘self’ is not a noun, not a thing, not an observer, nor a somebody etc.
As such the nature of the ‘self’ would be far different then what most of us think, i.e. not an isolated individual self, but a collective self which is everyone’s ‘self’.
If soul = consciousness or awareness and it cannot be observed, nor can one observe the other, then it cannot be proven but only ‘known’ personally or privately.
God or the soul does not have to be proven (to others) to exist to be known to exist. (by god I mean soul, transcendent self, unity consciousness, Brahman/Atman, awareness etc).
One individual can know god, universal consciousness exists as a fact of knowledge in such a way as it would not be shareable to others except as information and/or communication through words.