Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2001 5:17 am
by Czhorat
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vallie:
<B> *reads through this carefully a few times before answering*<P>I'm sort of confused about your response, so I'm going to phrase what I say carefully. And keep in mind, the questions I may ask are not to be condesending or meant out of spite... I simply want to understand you better. ^_^<P>When I say "soul" what does that mean to you?<P>I'm going to say what I've gathered from your response.. Do you believe our soul is just our personality... our ego.. our memories... information to be lost? <P>When I say soul, it, to me, means very basically a perpetual energy within and surrounding the human body. I don't believe it carries "information"... information is stored in the human brain. Personality, ego that's all stored in your brain. I really think aspects of personality are genetic, and would have to be something programmed into your brain. If you damage the human brain, information is inaccessable but the energy is still there. Inaccessable, but maybe not lost.<P>Actually, I often wonder about what our brains are capable of. We have a large percentage of space that's unavailable... I wonder, what would we be capable of, or what else could we know if we could use those parts of our brains?<P>Anyway, that being said... I believe our brains store information, not our souls. So what happens to the soul when we die? You agreed ENERGY cannot be destroyed. I refuse to believe our soul is just a poem lost in ashes.<P>Vallie</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What do I mean by "soul"? Setting aside, for the moment, the fact that I don't believe it exists, I've always thought of the soul as whatever unique quality it is that makes you you. You definition seems to be a little bit different. <P>My question, and please don't take this as condescending, is "what do you mean by 'energy'?" In the thermodynamic sense (which you'd have to use if you talk about conservation of energy), it is the ability to do work. <P>If you believe that the "soul" is made up of energy surrounding and permeating the human body, then wouldn't it be the form the energy is in that really means something? A candle flame, for example, contains energy (in the form of light and heat). After the candle is snuffed out, the energy remains, but only as an almost impercible increase in the ambient temperature. The energy was not destroyed, but the flame is gone.<P>Don't take this to mean that the soul does not exist. I don't think it's provable one way or the other (I do believe that logic would <B>suggest</B> that it doesn't exist, but it's nearly impossible to prove a negative). Your "thermodynamic argument" certainly doesn't work, unless I misunderstood part of it.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2001 5:38 am
by Czhorat
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vallie:
<B>Actually, I often wonder about what our brains are capable of. We have a large percentage of space that's unavailable... I wonder, what would we be capable of, or what else could we know if we could use those parts of our brains?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So far as I know, we <B>do</B> use all of our brains. CAT scans of normal people show electrical activity throughout the whole thing. In fact, the brain is so efficiently used that parts of the brain will "retrain" themselves if their regular functions aren't possible. Blind people, for example, use their visual cortex to interpret touch (this explains how it's possible for a blind person to so easilly read braille). So far as I know, the idea that we only use a small part of our brain is just a myth. If you know something to contratict this, please let me know.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2001 7:05 am
by gwalla
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Czhorat:
<B> So far as I know, we do</B> use all of our brains. CAT scans of normal people show electrical activity throughout the whole thing. In fact, the brain is so efficiently used that parts of the brain will "retrain" themselves if their regular functions aren't possible. Blind people, for example, use their visual cortex to interpret touch (this explains how it's possible for a blind person to so easilly read braille). So far as I know, the idea that we only use a small part of our brain is just a myth. If you know something to contratict this, please let me know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The myth comes from the fact that, if you take a "snapshot" CAT scan of a working brain, only a small section is active. However, this is only true for any individual instant. If you take another snapshot a few seconds later, entirely different parts of the brain will be active.<P>As far as souls go, I've never seen more than a couple of people agree on a definition. And to the best of my knowledge, biologists currently have no need to rely on any "life force" to explain life; chemical rections do just fine--and by Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data is the best.<P>While it's true that energy is neither created or destroyed (law of conservation of energy), it's also true that entropy exists (first law of thermodynamics). Disorder (aka "heat") in a closed system will necessarily increase over time. When a body dies, its energy converts into heat: electrical impulses encounter resistance, the motion of body parts encounter friction, and the whole thing just winds down as the heat dissipates into the surroundings.<P>------------------
"If it ain't from the heart then it can't be art.
If you ain't got proof then it can't be truth.
If it ain't got legs then it cannot run.
If it ain't never started then it can't be done."
- Everlast, "Whitey"

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2001 1:05 am
by Czhorat
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vallie:
<B> How do I give a scientific explaination for something that modern science cannot prove nor disprove? If I could give you a logical scientific explaination, science would have figured it out by now and made it a law! I've tried already to explain, and in your eyes failed, and I cannot articulate a better explaination. I know what it feels like... and if I could put that sensory input in a chip and put it in your brain it would be a whole lot simpler.<P>My first mistake was trying to relate something purely supernatural to natural science to you. In order to understand you can't look at it backwards and just see the natural science... the supernatural element is still there. It doesn't help the explaination of my words that you don't believe in the supernatural element.<P>Vallie</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think this is the main difference between your worldview and mine; I don't see any questions about how the world works that science can't answer. We might not have all of the answers now, but I do believe that everything in the universe obeys some kind of consistant natural laws. I think this is a very fundamental difference in how you and I see the world.<P>I wasn't trying to talk you out of believing anything that you do - I just won't let you use messy science to justify it. Because your reasons for believing are non-scientific, I assume that my arguments shouldn't bother you.<P>I did enjoy the discussion though.. You do have some interesting things to say. Thanks for sharing.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2001 1:22 am
by Tom the Fanboy
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roscoe Mathieu:
<B>Actually, children and animals CAN hear into the ultrasonic, to varying degrees. Children's eardrums are smaller, therefor able to pick up shorter waves. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Wow! That explains a lot! I remember hearing tons of "white noise" when I was a kid! I used to halucinate that I heard the TV on in the living room when no-one else in the house was up. Hmmmm....<P>------------------
Tom the Fanboy
http://www.geocities.com/tee-moss
The House of Tee-Moss, home of Billberg University.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2001 1:22 am
by Vallie
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Czhorat:
<B> What do I mean by "soul"? Setting aside, for the moment, the fact that I don't believe it exists, I've always thought of the soul as whatever unique quality it is that makes you you. You definition seems to be a little bit different. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ok, yes of course... that question was ignorant on my part.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B><P>My question, and please don't take this as condescending, is "what do you mean by 'energy'?" In the thermodynamic sense (which you'd have to use if you talk about conservation of energy), it is the ability to do work. <P>If you believe that the "soul" is made up of energy surrounding and permeating the human body, then wouldn't it be the form the energy is in that really means something? A candle flame, for example, contains energy (in the form of light and heat). After the candle is snuffed out, the energy remains, but only as an almost impercible increase in the ambient temperature. The energy was not destroyed, but the flame is gone.<P>Don't take this to mean that the soul does not exist. I don't think it's provable one way or the other (I do believe that logic would suggest</B> that it doesn't exist, but it's nearly impossible to prove a negative). Your "thermodynamic argument" certainly doesn't work, unless I misunderstood part of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There are just sometimes I wish I could just meld my mind with another's. That way they could just know what I think and know, and I wouldn't have to go through the trouble of words. I don't know how to really explain what I mean, especially to someone who doesn't believe in it in the first place.<P>How do I give a scientific explaination for something that modern science cannot prove nor disprove? If I could give you a logical scientific explaination, science would have figured it out by now and made it a law! I've tried already to explain, and in your eyes failed, and I cannot articulate a better explaination. I know what it feels like... and if I could put that sensory input in a chip and put it in your brain it would be a whole lot simpler.<P>My first mistake was trying to relate something purely supernatural to natural science to you. In order to understand you can't look at it backwards and just see the natural science... the supernatural element is still there. It doesn't help the explaination of my words that you don't believe in the supernatural element.<P>Vallie

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2001 1:22 am
by Coyotegirl
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roscoe Mathieu:
<B>Tom: You actually did. The picture tube of a TV gives off a very short soundwave, just low enough for children to hear but just high enough for adults to miss. Computer monitors use a much higher cycling system, which makes for even shorter waves, outside even children's abilities to hear. I haven't asked my dog about it yet.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Some adults can hear it, if their high range hearing isn't shot. (I can.)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2001 12:18 pm
by Vallie
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roscoe Mathieu:
<B>Actually, children and animals CAN hear into the ultrasonic, to varying degrees. Children's eardrums are smaller, therefor able to pick up shorter waves. By this logic, it should not seem impossible that your sister could hear your grandfather. He'd just sound like a mouse.<P>*starts pulling out his library on ghost activity, pausing briefly at the ESP section to remember the good times*</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes! Exactly!<P>Vallie

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2001 12:39 pm
by Guest
Tom: You actually did. The picture tube of a TV gives off a very short soundwave, just low enough for children to hear but just high enough for adults to miss. Computer monitors use a much higher cycling system, which makes for even shorter waves, outside even children's abilities to hear. I haven't asked my dog about it yet.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2001 3:03 am
by Akatsukami
<B>Vallie</B> writes: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>he same thing I said to my sister when she said she talks to my Grandfather.<P>FYI, my Grandfather has been dead for 5 years, and my sister was two when he passed on. She very barely remembers him.<P>I very calmly sat back, listened to what she said, and played it like a cool normal thing. Deep inside, I questioned whether she was telling the truth... FYI, she's very manipulative, and would say something like that to pull my emotional strings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Talking to the dead is a trivial and rather common, albeit fairly pointless, exercise.<P>Getting the dead to <i>answer</i>...now <i>that's</i> the tricky part...
<P>------------------
Clean. Sustainable. Affordable.<P>Choose any two.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2001 2:10 am
by gwalla
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vallie:
<B>There are just sometimes I wish I could just meld my mind with another's. That way they could just know what I think and know, and I wouldn't have to go through the trouble of words. I don't know how to really explain what I mean, especially to someone who doesn't believe in it in the first place.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Now you know how agnostics feel when debating True Believers!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>How do I give a scientific explaination for something that modern science cannot prove nor disprove?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Don't. If science doesn't apply to it, trying to describe it in terms of science will just give you a headache. The language of science has developed to describe things in terms of logic, reason, and proof. It is particularly poorly suited for discussing articles of faith, because faith has no place in science.<P>(Quick clarification of terms: I'm usng "reason" to mean "belief arrived at by evidence and logic", and "faith" to mean "belief not backed by solid evidence or logic".)<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>My first mistake was trying to relate something purely supernatural to natural science to you. In order to understand you can't look at it backwards and just see the natural science... the supernatural element is still there. It doesn't help the explaination of my words that you don't believe in the supernatural element.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You have to understand where skeptics are coming from. Here's the two main principles of thought that skeptics go by:<P><B>Occam's Razor</B> - The explanation with the least number of theoretical constructs that is consistent with the data is the best. This is basically "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" expressed in philosophical terms.<P><B>Hume's Dictum</B> - The explanation that relies the least on miracles is the best. You may have seen the single-panel cartoon has written a huge equation on the chalkboard, and right in the middle it says "...and then, a miracle occurs..."; another scientist is standing to the side reading it and saying, "I think you need to be more explicit here in step two." That's Hume's Dictum.<P>Hume's Dictum is the refutation of "God in the gaps" thinking--the idea that, since our current theoretical models don't explain a certain phenomenon, it must have a supernatural cause. The neocreationists (they call themselves "Intelligent Design Theorists") fall into this trap: the argument that an intelligent force must be behind the development of life because it currently doesn't explain how certin complex and interrelated chemical processes came to be (complex and interrelated in that they depend on each other so closely that they seem to have to have developed simultaneously) is just this sort of messy thinking...we don't know how it happened but that doesn't necessarily mean that we <I>can't</I> know. Hume's Dictum is necessary because "God in the gaps" is an intellectual dead end...if you claim that something works because of divine or magical intervention, it's the same as saying it works "just 'cause", and further investigation becomes pointless.<P>------------------
"If it ain't from the heart then it can't be art.
If you ain't got proof then it can't be truth.
If it ain't got legs then it cannot run.
If it ain't never started then it can't be done."
- Everlast, "Whitey"

PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2001 3:39 am
by Tom the Fanboy
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Coyotegirl:
<B> Some adults can hear it, if their high range hearing isn't shot. (I can.)</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah I can too. <P>But I meant that there would be no TV on in the house when I was a kid and I would lay there thinking at 7 AM Saturday...."Is that the TV? It sounds like the news. Mom may be up. Then I could go get breakfast. No wait, Her bedroom door is closed, she's in there. That means the TV isn't on and that's just a Vampire tyring to trick me so he can get me!" Keep in mind I was um......3-4 at this point. There was a lot of things out to get me then.<P>I could've been hearing the neighbors (it was a duplex) but even so that's four rooms across the house.<P>------------------
Tom the Fanboy
http://www.geocities.com/tee-moss
The House of Tee-Moss, home of Billberg University.