Evolution/Introduction of the Soul

[cosmosdan]

Not intending to start another tangent, but doesn’t quantum mechanics propose some theories that drastically change the common concepts of time and space?

@SentientMeat

Whoa, what? Earth has been around longer than I, humans or stromatolites have been on it, yes? Agreement with that statement does not require the non-sequitur condition you applied there.

The problem we will run into is you can’t realistically examine the concept of a timeless spirit by agreeing on events seen in linear time. So I can agree with your statement but I don’t see how it will move the discussion forward.

OK, if it’s only an illusion, just tell me how I can say stuff like that properly and I’ll be on my way. If you can’t think of how I might do that, why do you still assert that it is “illusory”?

I thought I answered this already. While we are in the illusion and interacting with others who don’t see it as illusion at all, we operate by the agreed on rules. That means terms of linear time, us, them, and duality. Keeping in mind that we are trying to let go of the illusion in a spiritual sense.

One does not need time to simply identify relative position. For instance, I could point at an eternal, unchanging rainbow and say that red is the first colour, orange the second, and so on. Events have an order whatever way you look at it – the two World Wars were not the same event.

That works fine until we try to relate time to timeless. It’s apples and oranges isn’t it?

Is it possible that by pointing out its logical consequences I might convince you that it’s as difficult to understand or embrace as a Flat Earth (for similar reasons)?

No need to convince me it’s difficult to understand. I’m convinced. To me it’s simply an interesting concept about some unsolved mysteries.

OK, who’s “we” here? Homo sapiens? If there’s an “us”, who is the “them” who didn’t believe that (or indeed, anything at all since they were incapable of belief of any kind)? Animals?

All part of the mystery and the challenge. I exist within the illusion and operate within it’s rules, and yet in order to release it I need to remind myself it is indeed an illusion and that others don’t see it that way.
for example, when Jesus said “whatever you do to the least of these you do to me” it wasn’t just a recommendation to be nice to those less fortunate. We are connected to each other beyond any imagined ability to to disconnect or remain separate. That remains true regardless of our denial and justification for actions that betray that truth. So even while we operate in terms of us and them for the sake of communication, we need to keep the truth of that connection in mind.

Yes. How would you explain the fossil record otherwise?

As part of the illusion.

That’s very kind, and if there’s one small piece of advice I might give, it is to be as brutally honest with oneself as possible. I have come to reject a great deal of dearly held convictions after deeply and honestly considering their logical consequences and finally admitting their inconsistency. If I can’t undertand something, try as I might, it might well be because it’s not right.

It’s that sincerity in you that I respect as much as your knowledge. I’ve rejected past convictions as well and I understand the how difficult the process can be. I’ve felt the pangs of personal reluctance to let go of certain convictions as if it were saying goodbye to an old reliable friend , or stepping from a firm foundation to uncertain ground. It may well be that I will reject this concept at some point. I agree with your recommendation of brutal honesty. For myself that means being aware of the difference between foundational beliefs and interesting theories and all the degrees in between.

Here is a crucial question – you can ignore the rest of my post and just concentrate on this if you like.

How can a timeless thing ‘progress’?

Change and time can very often be considered equivalent. If you say that a soul changes or progresses in any way, what you are really saying is that at one time it was like this, but at a different time it was like that. It seems that you must adhere either to a timeless soul which can have nothing to do with our temporal lives or allow it to change/progress/develop or whatever temporally-dependent word you choose. Is this not the Reductio Ad Absurdans for souls which lunar eclipses and tall masted ships sailing over the horizons were for a flat Earth?

Perhaps, but I am unwilling to concede this point. Progress is just a useful term. Another appropriate one might be surrender, or awaken. In the process you just spoke of we surrender to new understanding which requires rejecting convictions we once held. How far can that take us? When you release a formerly held conviction are you a new person? A different person? A better person? Would you say new realization makes you more free? Did false understanding become a form of bondage that held you back? That’s my view of the spiritual journey, the truth Jesus said would set us free, and the spirit that will guide us there. We exist within the illusion of time and separateness. A world of duality. At one extreme one might see life as a lone brutal struggle for survival and acquisition, concerned only with our own needs and desires. Some people believe exactly that. We surrender our beliefs to new concepts and understanding. I don’t find it ridiculous to imagine surrendering the concept of time and separateness.
What you describe above is that both concepts cannot be equally true and exist as prime reality. I agree. It seems just as possible to me that you will change your mind as I will change mine. So, where does that leave us?

[SentientMeat]

@cosmosdan

Not intending to start another tangent, but doesn’t quantum mechanics propose some theories that drastically change the common concepts of time and space?

Locally, on the very tiniest scales, spacetime is not the “smooth” cosmic fabric of our everyday lives or of Einstein’s relativity. But, again, this does not mean that time is an illusion or anything remotely like it.

The problem we will run into is you can’t realistically examine the concept of a timeless spirit by agreeing on events seen in linear time. So I can agree with your statement but I don’t see how it will move the discussion forward.

That’s OK, so long as we have agreement we can bring this into the discussion later.

I thought I answered this already.

And I thought you evaded this already. What is the point of declaring something as fundamental as time (or space, or matter for that matter) “illusory” if you cannot even provide an alternative way of describing things as straightforward as my birthday? Surely if you can see through the illusion you could tell me how better to look at it? And if you can’t, well, at what point does one give up and admit that it’s not an illusion at all?

That works fine until we try to relate time to timeless. It’s apples and oranges isn’t it?

One can still place events in order without being “immersed in time”. Imagine cutting up a film reel: one could still place the frames in order without actually running the film. In the same way, I can still place lifeless Earth, dinosaurs and my birth in relative positions, even without “time running along”, yes?

To me it’s simply an interesting concept about some unsolved mysteries.

Such as?

All part of the mystery and the challenge. I exist within the illusion and operate within it’s rules, and yet in order to release it I need to remind myself it is indeed an illusion and that others don’t see it that way.
for example, when Jesus said “whatever you do to the least of these you do to me” it wasn’t just a recommendation to be nice to those less fortunate. We are connected to each other beyond any imagined ability to to disconnect or remain separate. That remains true regardless of our denial and justification for actions that betray that truth. So even while we operate in terms of us and them for the sake of communication, we need to keep the truth of that connection in mind.

I’m afraid I have to call you on this – it’s just non sequiturs in floral prose. My direct question was whether your guess was that animals suffer the same illusion as us. You have already agreed that it’s a reasonable conclusion that there was some no-illusion to illusion event, given the finite span of life on Earth, even if you have no idea when it was. You can see where I’d be going next: at some point would be an individual which didn’t suffer the illusion whose offspring did. No matter where in the fossil record that individual lies, you’d still have to offer some non-ludicrous scenario whereby this could actually happen even in principle.

dan: So, if the earth existed and there was no consciousness to percieve it. was it really there?
SM: Yes. How would you explain the fossil record otherwise?
dan: As part of the illusion.

Non sequitur again. Really, re-read the three lines – your final answer simply does not follow. You are now calling fossils illusory! If everything is an illusion, the word loses all meaning.

Progress is just a useful term. Another appropriate one might be surrender, or awaken.

ie. a transition from liberty to captivity, or sleep to wakefulness. Again, at one time you’re free/asleep, another time you’re captive/awake.

When you release a formerly held conviction are you a new person? A different person? A better person? Would you say new realization makes you more free? Did false understanding become a form of bondage that held you back?

These questions are rather irrelevant here – can we stick to the point? For what it’s worth, my opinions are yes yes no no no.

That’s my view of the spiritual journey, the truth Jesus said would set us free, and the spirit that will guide us there. We exist within the illusion of time and separateness. A world of duality. At one extreme one might see life as a lone brutal struggle for survival and acquisition, concerned only with our own needs and desires. Some people believe exactly that. We surrender our beliefs to new concepts and understanding. I don’t find it ridiculous to imagine surrendering the concept of time and separateness.
What you describe above is that both concepts cannot be equally true and exist as prime reality. I agree. It seems just as possible to me that you will change your mind as I will change mine. So, where does that leave us?

Back at the same question, which I’d be very grateful if could try to actually answer concisely: Are timelessness and any change at all (be it progress, surrender, awakening or whatever) not mutually inconsistent?

[Tevildo]

@Contrapuntal

I am looking for an answer from the Christian perspective. ( I can’t believe how many times I have had to repeat that.) For the purposes of this discussion the soul is stipulated, by definition, as being distinctly and exclusively human.

I don’t think there’s such a thing as the Christian perspective on this issue, or indeed on the vast majority of issues.

As a Christian, I personally would respond (as I did earlier) by stating that I don’t believe in a “soul” that matches your definition, and would refer you (as before) to Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 for scriptural justification of my belief. This may not be an adequate answer to your question, but, as it’s stated, it’s the only one I can give.

[Contrapuntal]

@Tevildo

I don’t think there’s such a thing as the Christian perspective on this issue, or indeed on the vast majority of issues.

As a Christian, I personally would respond (as I did earlier) by stating that I don’t believe in a “soul” that matches your definition, and would refer you (as before) to Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 for scriptural justification of my belief. This may not be an adequate answer to your question, but, as it’s stated, it’s the only one I can give.

I don’t have a Bible handy, and I must confess that my “understanding” of the soul is based on my youth as a Southern Baptist so perhaps it is inconsistent with modern Christian thinking.

It is interesting that you would conflate the “issue” of the soul with other nameless issues that Christians disagree about. One would think it would be central to the faith.

Hmm. I wouldn’t say there was anything unique about the human soul, if we use the word in its Aristotelean sense of “principle of life” - Ecclesiastes 3:18-21.
The aspect of the human mind that makes us unique is our capacity for rational, abstract thought, and I personally regard Genesis 3 as a metaphor for the suffering, as well as the power, that this has given us.

What about a human who is born without that capacity? Anencephaly. DO these humans have a soul?

[cosmosdan]

@SentientMeat

Locally, on the very tiniest scales, spacetime is not the “smooth” cosmic fabric of our everyday lives or of Einstein’s relativity. But, again, this does not mean that time is an illusion or anything remotely like it.

Not yet anyway. What it hints at fairly strongly is that our present knowledge may be only the tiniest tip of the iceberg and there are likely still things to discover that will make our present day knowledge seem childish. Maybe not, I don’t know, but I don’t believe you know either.

And I thought you evaded this already. What is the point of declaring something as fundamental as time (or space, or matter for that matter) “illusory” if you cannot even provide an alternative way of describing things as straightforward as my birthday? **Surely if you can see through the illusion you could tell me how better to look at it? **And if you can’t, well, at what point does one give up and admit that it’s not an illusion at all?

Look, I started this simply by trying to express a concept I was reading about that I thought related to the thread. I’ve made it clear that I didn’t fully understand it or completely embrace it. So, let’s curb the snarky comments or just bring the conversation to a halt.
I’m not trying to evade anything or be coy. I simply am having a hard time at figuring out how your questions relate because of the subject matter. In this case outside the illusion can mean no longer in the physical, as in a spiritual being that does not return to earth. In that case it seems obvious that your physical birthday would be completely irrelevant right? I did say " We can still use those terms {1973 etc} in communicating and as a reference point without embracing them."
So what’s the problem? How is it I haven’t answered?

One can still place events in order without being “immersed in time”. Imagine cutting up a film reel: one could still place the frames in order without actually running the film. In the same way, I can still place lifeless Earth, dinosaurs and my birth in relative positions, even without “time running along”, yes?

I don’t see how. Events in order seems like being immersed in time to me. But let’s play it your way. Events in a certain order without running time. What’s your point? How will you use it without becoming immersed in time?

Such as?

The big one for me is are we really spiritual beings simply experiencing a physical world, and then, if that is true how does that change my response to the physical world and how I relate to others? That, IMO is what Jesus was talking about.

I’m afraid I have to call you on this – it’s just non sequiturs in floral prose. My direct question was whether your guess was that animals suffer the same illusion as us.

That may have been your question but I’d hardly call it direct. I took it as who is we , who’s us and them. In that regard my answer seems appropriate and not non sequitur in the least. As far as animals go, I have no idea. Never really spent much time wondering about it.

You have already agreed that it’s a reasonable conclusion that there was some no-illusion to illusion event, given the finite span of life on Earth, even if you have no idea when it was. You can see where I’d be going next: at some point would be an individual which didn’t suffer the illusion whose offspring did. No matter where in the fossil record that individual lies, you’d still have to offer some non-ludicrous scenario whereby this could actually happen even in principle.

What??? Speaking of non sequitur. No, no, and NO! As spiritual beings we have no offspring. Remember Jesus saying that others were his mother, brothers and sisters? Remember him referring to us as parts of the same body?In this concept, being in the physical, and believing you are primarily physical, is in the illusion. I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

Non sequitur again. Really, re-read the three lines – your final answer simply does not follow. You are now calling fossils illusory! If everything is an illusion, the word loses all meaning.

Sigh!! Yes, I’ve said several times that within this concept, the physical universe is an illusion created by believing in separateness. If we believe we are separate then we need a place to be separate in. I tried to express this before by comparing dreams. In dreams we see the power of our minds to create scenarios that can see amazingly real, but we wake to see they fall outside our definition of reality. Imagine what a mind a million, or more times more powerful might create.
So,…this is not non sequitur. If the physical universe and time are an illusion then it completely follows that fossils are as well doesn’t it?

ie. a transition from liberty to captivity, or sleep to wakefulness. Again, at one time you’re free/asleep, another time you’re captive/awake.

I understand the quandary. If I am timeless, and was free from illusion how can there be a “when” the illusion happened.

These questions are rather irrelevant here – can we stick to the point? For what it’s worth, my opinions are yes yes no no no.

I don’t think the questions are irrelevant to my point. The point you want to stick to is the one you insist on making. You’re the one that brought up letting go of long held concepts. That’s all I was talking about. Now that’s irrelevant?

Back at the same question, which I’d be very grateful if could try to actually answer concisely: Are timelessness and any change at all (be it progress, surrender, awakening or whatever) not mutually inconsistent?

Within the illusion of time it certainly seems that way, just as when I dream I am flying, it certainly seems that way.
One more time, I understand the quandary. My honest and unsatisfying answer is that I haven’t got that figured out yet but I am unwilling to abandon the concept for that reason, because I believe I may discover how they are not mutually exclusive.

Just for yucks try this. As I mentioned before. One eternal round. The events or moments we are speaking of are within that round, none being before or after the other because it is a complete circle. As timeless beings we can observe any of those events or all of those events as something not connected in any linear way to any other. When we embrace the concept of time and the physical world and our mortality {for reasons yet unexplained} by believing in our separateness, we must then place a linear value on these events. We can, by letting go of the illusion of separateness, return to our true timeless spiritual nature.

See,…and you thought the answer would be far fetched.

[Tevildo]

@Contrapuntal

I don’t have a Bible handy, and I must confess that my “understanding” of the soul is based on my youth as a Southern Baptist so perhaps it is inconsistent with modern Christian thinking.

• nods * - I don’t know if there is a “mainstream” position on this issue, and I’m not even sure if there’s a definitive Anglican ruling on it. Certainly, many Anglican churches offer “Blessing of Pets” ceremonies, so it’s not in opposition to the Anglican faith; beyond that, I can’t say. It’s certainly not a controversial issue, it’s just not one that’s regularly discussed.

It is interesting that you would conflate the “issue” of the soul with other nameless issues that Christians disagree about. One would think it would be central to the faith.

Yes, it’s essential to the Christian faith that we all have souls; I can’t think of any religion that doesn’t hold this viewpoint. The debatable point is whether or not animals have souls, which is the heart of your definition. Some Christians think they do, some thing they don’t. I don’t know of any Scriptural support for the latter position, but that’s not to say there isn’t any.

What about a human who is born without that capacity? Anencephaly. DO these humans have a soul?

If they’re alive, they have an Aristotelean anima, by definition. Someone who regarded a “soul” as a uniquely human attribute would probably say “no” to your question, although that shouldn’t stop such a person being treated as human for any sort of practical purposes; I understand that the Roman Catholic church can give a conditional baptism in cases of extreme tetralogy - “N, if thou art capable of baptism, I baptize thee… (etc)”. The distinction is not between soul and non-soul, but between a human soul (subject to divine judgement and Original Sin) and a generic anima that doesn’t require salvation.

[SentientMeat]

@cosmosdan

Not yet anyway.

Look at that very sentence. What does the phrase “not yet” mean, if not “not [i[at this time”. Yet again, whatever quantum mechanics says about time (and even it has now been around for nearly a century) will not change the fact that events have an order.

In this case outside the illusion can mean no longer in the physical

Great - let’s stick with this, since I have no quarrel with it. What I do question is how a timeless non-physical thing can even interact with our temporal, physical lives - that was the point of the Important Question (“How does a timeless thing change?”)

But let’s play it your way. Events in a certain order without running time. What’s your point?

We would agree that there was a first thing with a soul, where other things had none.

The big one for me is are we really spiritual beings simply experiencing a physical world

Or, of course, physical beings experiencing a physical world. One of these is far more intuitive than the other, I venture.

As far as animals go, I have no idea. Never really spent much time wondering about it.

I hereby politely request that you join me in wondering about it, since there are some large logically consequential bullets to bite.

I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

Somehwere in the fossil record lies the first indiviual who suffered “the illusion”, yes?

I’ve said several times that within this concept, the physical universe is an illusion

If everything is an illusion, why not just call it “real”? Without any power of actual distinction, the chosen sequence of letters is utterly arbitrary?

In dreams we see the power of our minds to create scenarios that can see amazingly real

Dont’ you mean amazingly imaginary, given that you think our physical lives are illusory?

If the physical universe and time are an illusion then it completely follows that fossils are as well doesn’t it?

It does, but I wish do you’d said so explicitly earlier, rather than just time being an illusion.

If I am timeless, and was free from illusion how can there be a “when” the illusion happened?

Precisely! Given reductio ad absurdans, either you must not be timeless or there must be no illusion, since the two are not logically compatible. Which do you choose?

My honest and unsatisfying answer is that I haven’t got that figured out yet but I am unwilling to abandon the concept for that reason, because I believe I may discover how they are not mutually exclusive.

Good luck, but you surely a Flat Earther might just as well refuse to accept that the Earth is not flat despite demonstrable logical inconsistencies which simply will not go away?

One eternal round. The events or moments we are speaking of are within that round, none being before or after the other because it is a complete circle.

So the two World Wars were actually the same war? In fact, there would be no such thing as “events” or “moments” since these words are again themselves time-dependent.

As timeless beings we can observe any of those events

No, we really couldn’t if we wanted to make sense of them. Think what the phrase “observe an event” means. A film of an event has consecutive frames even if you view them all at once. If you mixed the frames up in disorder and added frames from other events, you simply could not say you were “observing the event”. Again: observation is yet another time-dependent word.

We can, by letting go of the illusion of separateness, return to our true timeless spiritual nature.

Return to timelessness is yet another contradiction in terms.

See,…and you thought the answer would be far fetched.

No, I just think it’s logically inconsistent.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]

@SentientMeat

Look at that very sentence. What does the phrase “not yet” mean, if not “not [i[at this time”. Yet again, whatever quantum mechanics says about time (and even it has now been around for nearly a century) will not change the fact that events have an order.

Wait, I think I see what’s holding you back.

Great - let’s stick with this, since I have no quarrel with it. What I do question is how a timeless non-physical thing can even interact with our temporal, physical lives - that was the point of the Important Question (“How does a timeless thing change?”)

It’s a good question alright.

We would agree that there was a first thing with a soul, where other things had none.

No we wouldn’t. I would say, according to this concept that it only appears that way within the illusion, and that soul is reality.

Or, of course, physical beings experiencing a physical world. One of these is far more intuitive than the other, I venture.

Could you be more specific? Which one exactly?

I hereby politely request that you join me in wondering about it, since there are some large logically consequential bullets to bite.

This is one of those subjects that fall under “I don’t know and am not that interested in” If the concept I am exploring is even somewhat correct then the answer will be reveal itself. If I reject the concept then there’s no need to ask. If you’d like to point out the bullets I’ll be glad to note them.

Somewhere in the fossil record lies the first individual who suffered “the illusion”, yes?

Except the fossil record itself is part of the illusion being suffered. That’s why I think this direction is futile.

If everything is an illusion, why not just call it “real”? Without any power of actual distinction, the chosen sequence of letters is utterly arbitrary?
Don’t’ you mean amazingly imaginary, given that you think our physical lives are illusory?

AAhhh that’s exactly what happens. We call the illusion reality. {and the wind mariah} If an individual believes he is Napoleon then his mind translates everything around him to support this belief. He first has to at least suspect he is something else to stop being Napoleon.

It does, but I wish do you’d said so explicitly earlier, rather than just time being an illusion.

Ahem… me from an earlier post. “We are timeless spiritual beings united with God and each other. When we believed we were separate from God and each other we created the universe and duality as part of the illusion of separateness.”

How explicit does it need to be?

Precisely! Given reductio ad absurdans, either you must not be timeless or there must be no illusion, since the two are not logically compatible. Which do you choose?

Neither. My conclusion at this point is that there is much left to understand.

Good luck, but you surely a Flat Earther might just as well refuse to accept that the Earth is not flat despite demonstrable logical inconsistencies which simply will not go away?

Sure that’s one possibility.

So the two World Wars were actually the same war? In fact, there would be no such thing as “events” or “moments” since these words are again themselves time-dependent.

What we interpret as the physical are expressions of the spiritual. According to Jesus holding hatred within is the same as murder. Seems crazy doesn’t it? No murder event has occurred, how could it be the same?

No, we really couldn’t if we wanted to make sense of them. Think what the phrase “observe an event” means. A film of an event has consecutive frames even if you view them all at once. If you mixed the frames up in disorder and added frames from other events, you simply could not say you were “observing the event”. Again: observation is yet another time-dependent word.

Yes, that’s why I’ve said several times that this conversation seems futile. You can’t describe it in words successfully. Try this one as a small example. Have you ever interacted within someone and had an experience of such joy, union and surrender, that the lines start to blur. The giver receives, and the receiver gives until instead of an event or several events requiring labels there is just this experience. This moment that seems to contain everything we aspire to. It even seems that us is no longer me and you but one entity that can no longer be separated. What if that moment and that experience can be every moment?
If that’s possible then the moment and experience is what matters and no before or after is necessary. If I view one frame of a film it can still hold meaning as a still photo might. I can view a series of still photos in any order and each holds its own meaning.

Return to timelessness is yet another contradiction in terms.
No, I just think it’s logically inconsistent.

I know you do. I’m okay with that. I myself think it’s impossible to really discuss it within linear time, within the confines of our language, without allowing for those inconsistencies. So you see, I understand the logical inconsistencies. I just see them having different meaning than you do. No need to keep pointing them out.

[SentientMeat]

cosmosdan, I think we’ve gone as far as we can here. I think I’ve shown that a timeless soul is logically incompatible with a soul which changes (or interacts in any way) over successive lifetimes, and you are simply holding out for someone or something to come along in future (get the irony?) and explain how logical inconsistencies don’t matter, or something.

I hope I have, at least, taught you something about the illusion which you didn’t know before, rather like me pointing out how lunar eclipses teach the Flat Earther something about the illusion they call the round Earth. That you cannot even guess which of these two statements I suggest is the more intuitive: [ul][]We are spiritual beings experiencing a physical world.[] We are physical beings experiencing a physical world.[/ul] … is, let’s say, telling in itself. If I may politely offer some advice? Tell the person you’re discussing your beliefs with that you think the entire physical world including the computer you’re sitting at is an illusion and they will understand you far more deeply and with far less initial confusion.

[Polerius]

@Contrapuntal

What I am really trying to get at is how evolution can be justified with a belief in a soul.

I’ve had this question too, and initially I though that you had to make a choice between accepting evolution and accepting the existence of an eternal soul. However, I think a compromise solution exists. I’ll start with an example:

Let’s say I have some a CD with an advanced operating system that has some hardware requirements in order to be able to install it. And let’s say my friend has an old computer that doesn’t meet the hardware requirements.

So, I wait until he buys newer and newer computers until one day he buys one which has the right hardware components to run the software I have. At that time, I give him my advanced operating system and he installs it.

Similarly, it’s possible that God/Creator/or simply the souls were sitting around for eons waiting for suitable meat machines to evolve, so they can download themselves into them.

It’s not necessarily what I believe happened, but it’s an example of one way we could have evolution and eternal souls both be true.

[Contrapuntal]

@Polerius

Similarly, it’s possible that God/Creator/or simply the souls were sitting around for eons waiting for suitable meat machines to evolve, so they can download themselves into them.

It’s not necessarily what I believe happened, but it’s an example of one way we could have evolution and eternal souls both be true.

My question would then be when did this occur? Nature does not make leaps. The animals that we call “human” today did not appear all at once, so there was no “time” when they were all suitable for a soul. Did this happen on an individual basis? Did a creature without a soul give birth to one with a soul?

[Polerius]

@Contrapuntal

My question would then be when did this occur? Nature does not make leaps. The animals that we call “human” today did not appear all at once, so there was no “time” when they were all suitable for a soul. Did this happen on an individual basis? Did a creature without a soul give birth to one with a soul?

Isn’t this similar to the question “Did a creature that was not a chicken give birth to one that was a chicken?”

We do know that animals evolve, so I guess creatures do give birth to other creatures that are sligtly evolved compared to them.

Does it matter when the first “chicken” appeared? All we know is that at some point there were no chickens and at a later point there were chickens.

Similarly with soul-capable meat machines. At some point there were none and then there were some. What might have happened in between those two points is anyone’s guess.

If you need a minimum recommended CPU speed of 250 MHz to install WindowsXP, do you install it when you have 244 MHz? 249 MHz? 251 MHz?

At some point you say: I have enough CPU speed.

Even at 244 MHz, it will probably still run, though it will be a bit slow. (you see the analogy)

[Contrapuntal]

@Polerius

Isn’t this similar to the question “Did a creature that was not a chicken give birth to one that was a chicken?”

We do know that animals evolve, so I guess creatures do give birth to other creatures that are sligtly evolved compared to them.

Does it matter when the first “chicken” appeared? All we know is that at some point there were no chickens and at a later point there were chickens.

Similarly with soul-capable meat machines. At some point there were none and then there were some. What might have happened in between those two points is anyone’s guess.

My assumption is that humans have a soul that distinguishes them from all other animals. I have stated this many times in this thread. Feel free to reject it. I assume that Christians believe it to be true. Obviously some do not. However, in the absence of anyone chiming in with a reference to Christian dogma that suggests that a human soul is just like an animal soul, only more advanced, (or words to that effect), I am going to hang onto it as as a working assumption. Without that assumption, of course, my question is meaningless. With that assumption, I am compelled to ask when in the continuum of evolution this soul appeared.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]

@SentientMeat

cosmosdan, I think we’ve gone as far as we can here. I think I’ve shown that a timeless soul is logically incompatible with a soul which changes (or interacts in any way) over successive lifetimes, and you are simply holding out for someone or something to come along in future (get the irony?) and explain how logical inconsistencies don’t matter, or something.

Uh Huh! I think I mentioned several posts ago that it wasn’t really going to accomplish much. Of course I don’t agree with your conclusion here but what the hey.

I hope I have, at least, taught you something about the illusion which you didn’t know before, rather like me pointing out how lunar eclipses teach the Flat Earther something about the illusion they call the round Earth.

I appreciate you posing the questions you did and I will keep them in mind as I consider the concept.

[QUOTE]

That you cannot even guess which of these two statements I suggest is the more intuitive: [ul][li]We are spiritual beings experiencing a physical world.[*] We are physical beings experiencing a physical world.[/ul] … is, let’s say, telling in itself. [/li][/QUOTE]

LOL, That you didn’t get that my question was completely in jest is, let’s say, surprising. I thought it was so obvious that a smiley face wasn’t necessary. Evidently I was mistaken.

If I may politely offer some advice? Tell the person you’re discussing your beliefs with that you think the entire physical world including the computer you’re sitting at is an illusion and they will understand you far more deeply and with far less initial confusion.

Well, that’s polite so thanks. However, If you look at my posts again you’ll see this in my first post {#19}
“Time and space are illusions we created in order to reinforce the separate from God, belief.”

and in post #24 in response to you.
“The soul has something to do with things on earth in that it, or we have created this illusion and maintains it by a reluctance to surrender to our spiritual existence.”

Again I ask, how explicit do I have to be?

In conclusion, I’d like to comment that this thought experiment is of slight consequence. It’s more accurately described as an open question rather than my belief. My belief is that we don’t know. That there are still great mysteries yet to unfold.

[Polerius]

@Contrapuntal

My assumption is that humans have a soul that distinguishes them from all other animals. I have stated this many times in this thread. Feel free to reject it. I assume that Christians believe it to be true. Obviously some do not. However, in the absence of anyone chiming in with a reference to Christian dogma that suggests that a human soul is just like an animal soul, only more advanced, (or words to that effect), I am going to hang onto it as as a working assumption. Without that assumption, of course, my question is meaningless.

I don’t understand what your point is here.

What I said above does in no way assume that humans have a soul that is the same as other animals.

In my example, it is possible that only humans have souls. Nothing in the example requires accepting that animals have souls. As I said, human souls could have been waiting around until human-soul-capable meat machines evolved, and then they started inhabiting them.

With that assumption, I am compelled to ask when in the continuum of evolution this soul appeared.

Again, this is the same as the question “when in the continuum of evolution did the first chicken appear”. It’s hard to define, isn’t it?

Anyway, at time t0 there were no human-soul-capable meat machines around, and at time t1, there were human-soul-capable meat machines.

Maybe souls waited around until time t1 came around, and then started inhabiting these human-soul-capable meat machines.

Are you asking what is the exact value of t1? What does it matter?

[Tevildo]

@Contrapuntal

However, in the absence of anyone chiming in with a reference to Christian dogma that suggests that a human soul is just like an animal soul, only more advanced, (or words to that effect)

For the third time:

Ecclesiastes 3:19-21

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Can you, or anyone else, give me a Scriptural reference for the idea that only humans have souls? I’m now genuinely interested to see where this misconception comes from.

[Contrapuntal]

@Polerius

Again, this is the same as the question “when in the continuum of evolution did the first chicken appear”. It’s hard to define, isn’t it?

Sure it is. However, the designation “chicken” is an example of something humans do in order to place things in categories. They are what they regardless of what we call them.

Did the soul occur all at once, or did it appear gradually, as gradually as chicken ancestors became chickens? If so, did the last almost a human primate have 99.9999999% of a soul?

@Tevildo

For the third time:

Ecclesiastes 3:19-21

No need to get snippy. It may be the third time but it is the first time the text has been included. I told you I did not have a Bible.

Did God not grant dominion over all the beasts to Man? At any rate, duelling scriptures is a pointless game. As I said, in my religious upbringing, humans secured their plave in heaven by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior. I recall nothing about that being available to any other animals. Are other animals even capable of such a decision?

[murphy54]

you are IGNORANT and if you were wise you would read this.All that science knows is nothinq.It is from here to there(limited) while all we do not know is from there to infinity.So logically(the base of all science)yhe part that science should have in the general ecuation is equal to somethinq/infinity=0.It is mathematically proved what I say(heisenberg principle or somethinq like that=read well and make the connection)

[SentientMeat]

@murphy54

you are IGNORANT and if you were wise you would read this.All that science knows is nothinq.It is from here to there(limited) while all we do not know is from there to infinity.So logically(the base of all science)yhe part that science should have in the general ecuation is equal to somethinq/infinity=0.It is mathematically proved what I say(heisenberg principle or somethinq like that=read well and make the connection)

Greetings murphy. I am an atheist who has studied the Uncertainty principle academically. Can you present your “proof” for discussion?

[Greenback]

Good luck SentientMeat. This looks like a wit(ness) and run.