TenQ:

In summary: We do not have sufficient information similar to that which we have with softwares acting on a computer: thus, we can only generalise

What is the Soul?
The Soul is the self/personal/internal IDENTITY of a person: the source of our WILL, INTELLECT and EMOTION! These three effects of the Soul is called the MIND! Someone like me sees the soul as the Software of the Body (hardware). The software thus must interact with the hardware of the brain in other to control the body.

The Brain is the source of the WILL, INTELLECT, EMOTION. These three effects amongst others are part of conciousness or mind and you don't need a soul to explain how the brain generates the effects. On the other hand, your "soul" is totally dependent on the acceptance of your claim that it "interfaces with the liver ,spleen ,brain.

TenQ:

Of cause, the "me" cannot be your brain!
The "me" in this case is the unseen you inside your body. It is the one who feels all the emotions and makes all the decisions you make.

Just as your Physical Identity is your BODY, your Soul is your Internal/Personal Identity.

Hmm. Your soul is that which your mind identifies as you? (I say, mind, on the assumption that is where you ability to be conscious resides).

I don't have an "Internal/Personal Identity", TenQ. I find that my mind constantly evolves as I feed it with knowledge and experiences, and the ability to reflect has ensured the feedback loop creates constant flux so that buda saying buda identifies as this or that would be untrue almost immediately after it is said.

Others do label one with personal identity however, though obviously not internal, but I find they often have insufficient information and are just generalising.

killyaselfie:


The Brain is the source of the WILL, INTELLECT, EMOTION. These three effects amongst other are part of conciousness or mind and you don't need a soul to explain how the brain generate the effects.

I concur. Though I might have said, the mind.

killyaselfie:


There is nothing weird about what I am saying until you show how thoughts are independent of material things. There is nothing anti-scientific about matter generating thought. Neurons, chemical signals, electrical signals products of matter or matter themselves.

Save that this is not the question and you have already answered the question by affirming that you believe that thoughts are matter, and that they have mass and occupy space, for example, on paper.

Still, stop trying to disprove the fact that thoughts are matter (as in material) and explain how thoughts are examples of the immaterial which is the bone of contention. You are the one who is supposed to have proven this in a few short sentences!!



Yes, thought are matter. You can figure out the state if you want.
https://southsidemedical.net/how-brain-chemistry-affects-mental-health/
Which Chemicals are Involved with Brain Chemistry and Mental Health?
Happiness, sadness, excitement, euphoria, and even fear are emotions that are triggered and maintained by chemicals in the brain known as neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitters are the brain’s way of communicating with the body’s nerve cells. When there isn’t enough or there is too much of one kind of neurotransmitter present, it can lead to what are called ‘bad nerves’.

The chief neurotransmitters produced by the brain are:

Dopamine
Dopamine is the chemical in the brain that is associated with the pleasure and reward centers of the brain. High amounts of dopamine lead to feelings of pleasure or euphoria.
Serotonin
Serotonin is the chemical associated with rest and sleep. However, it’s also associated with your moods, sexual arousal and even hunger.
Glutamate
Glutamate is associated with learning, memory and feelings of excitement.
Norepinephrine
Norepinephrine acts as both a neurotransmitter as well as a hormone. Norepinephrine is a stress-responsive chemical that creates the “fight or flight” response when we are feeling stressed out. Low levels of it can cause ADHD and depression.

Unlike electricity, the brain's chemical messengers, the neurotransmitters, are difficult to identify from first observations. The action of electricity could be confirmed or disproved by home-style tests; but the activity and nature of a chemical compound that may be involved in the brain's signaling system demand more rigorous examination. The compound must meet a half dozen specific criteria to be considered a neurotransmitter—as opposed to, say, a "second messenger" in the brain, which broadcasts signals within a cell rather than conveying a signal from one cell to another. (Distinctions such as this, which may seem overly fine at first, have a way of turning out later to be crucial for understanding new, otherwise inexplicable data.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234149/
To be recognized as a neurotransmitter, a chemical compound must satisfy six conditions: It must be (1) synthesized in the neuron, (2) stored there, and (3) released in sufficient quantity to bring about some physical effect; (4) when administered experimentally, the compound must demonstrate the same effect that it brings about in living tissue; and (5) there must be receptor sites specific to this compound on the postsynaptic membrane, as well as (6) a means for shutting off its effect, either by causing its swift decomposition or by reuptake, absorbing it back into the cell. Of course, before any of these items on the checklist come into question, the compound must somehow be detectable in the human brain—not always an easy matter, in view of the minute quantities involved.

Well I think its obvious we cant make any further progress on this. I also believe any independent observer can arrive at his/ her own conclusions regarding our little exchange. Thanks for your time.

killyaselfie:


I guess it's in the same sense that geocentrism is correct.

Not at all, but no matter.
G'nite.

DeepsightX:


Save that this is not the question and you have already answered the question by affirming that you believe that thoughts are matter, and that they have mass and occupy space, for example, on paper.

Yes, they have mass and occupy space as chemicals/neurons otherwise known as a functioning brain with scientific backing posted.
Yes, they have mass and occupy space if you record them on a medium such as paper.

budaatum:


I concur. Though I might have said, the mind.

Okay, mind as in the part of brain involved in that function because we seem to ignore that we aren't even talking about a singular entity but one that can be divided into three distinct parts with various functions.

TenQ:

This means that there isn't much difference in our understanding except that you'll prefer to use "the mind" as an inseparable fusion of the hardware and software, whereas, I prefer to use "the soul" as a detachable software from the hardware of the body. I hope I'm correct with this view.

And you are correct that the soul/mind cannot survive without its hardware.

For Christians then, all animals have their souls and when they die, they cease to exist. Humans on the other hand have in addition their spirit body: such that when they die, their soul even though disconnected from their body is not disconnected from their spirit body. I am not saying this that you might agree with it: I am just stating how Christians relate to the concept of body, soul and spirit. God Himself is a Spirit! Angels, Demons too are spirits who all have their unique souls/personalities.

So back to the question, how can we tell the correct position?

TenQ:

I think it is weird to you because you atheistic mind has been able to accept same sex attractions as NORMAL but you at least for now reject bestiality or cannibalism or necrophilia as normal (which is good).

You have described same sex attractions as relics of the archaic fables: I didn't want you to cherry-pick.

It seems you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say same sex attraction was a relic of archaic fables. I said society is discovering that it no longer has to tie itself to archaic fables when it comes to being. This is especially with regards to the 2 things you initially mentioned which I responded to, transgender and homosexuality. Your mentioning cannibalism, beastiality or necrophilia are outside the scope of my address but even if I was to address it I would tell you that I don't see those becoming normative because they represent one of the most egregious form of harm society will not tolerate and that is lack of consent. Animals don't consent, cannibal victims don't consent nor do dead bodies or their families. If society must maintain order this is something that must continue to be upheld. Same sex attraction or transgender does not violate this particular ideal or introduce harm to the society so they're not even remotely in the same class as these others.

LordReed:


It seems you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say same sex attraction was a relic of archaic fables. I said society is discovering that it no longer has to tie itself to archaic fables when it comes to being. This is especially with regards to the 2 things you initially mentioned which I responded to, transgender and homosexuality. Your mentioning cannibalism, beastiality or necrophilia are outside the scope of my address but even if I was to address it I would tell you that I don't see those becoming normative because they represent one of the most egregious form of harm society will not tolerate and that is lack of consent. Animals don't consent, cannibal victims don't consent nor do dead bodies or their families. If society must maintain order this is something that must continue to be upheld. Same sex attraction or transgender does not violate this particular ideal or introduce harm to the society so they're not even remotely in the same class as these others.

The argument of mutual consent is extremely weak to justify same sex attractions. The problem is that atheists don't take their morality from outside themselves.
Bestiality for instance by the argument of consent falls apart. Putting it in perspective: if we can legally and morally kill and eat animals, having sex with animals should be nothing difficult.
Nudity is another example where no one is hurt by our action. How come it is still treated as immoral especially for an adult.
The argument of mutual consent or the argument of not hurting others is very weak in establishing rules for morality.

LordReed:


So back to the question, how can we tell the correct position?

I think I've answered this question at least twice.

Since in either position, no objective evidence can be established (no one can cut open any part of the body to show the mind or the soul), the best we can humanly do is to give a logical postulate/theory.

Therefore we have to propose our theory using the already known to explain the unknown.

For me, a known information is about the workings of a computer. I see a very strong parallel between how it functions with how the body of a living being function. In this case, the brain, central nervous system, eyes, and other organs of the body being analogous to the computer hardware and the Soul/Spirit represent the Application Softwares, System Softwares and Operating systems of a computer.

With this knowledge, I can describe the unknown from what is already known.

Like in all scientific theory, a theory is discarded if a better theory comes along. Any good theory must solve emergent problems and observations.

Do you think you have a more robust alternate theory?

TenQ:

The argument of mutual consent is extremely weak to justify same sex attractions. The problem is that atheists don't take their morality from outside themselves.
Bestiality for instance by the argument of consent falls apart. Putting it in perspective: if we can legally and morally kill and eat animals, having sex with animals should be nothing difficult.
Nudity is another example where no one is hurt by our action. How come it is still treated as immoral especially for an adult.
The argument of mutual consent or the argument of not hurting others is very weak in establishing rules for morality.

This is funny because you don't say why the issue of consent is weak with regards to homosexuality instead you substitute other things in and argue against those. Can you show how consent is actually weak with regards to homosexuality? Not that I was even arguing that consent is the reason why homosexuality is normative. It seems you don't understand my statements and instead of asking for clarification you are arguing against what I didn't say.

And you don't see that people are waking up to the fact that our treatment of animals goes against our very conception of morality or even good health. Or why do you think vegans and vegetarians exist? Do you think only atheists are vegans and vegetarians? A footballer was dropped by his sponsors because he kicked a cat for shittìng on his bed. Society is changing its mores towards animals.

Nudity is not immoral, public nudity is censured because it could lead to a breakdown of order. Your nudity in private is not considered immoral, you are free to walk around your home nude all day every day, nobody would say boo to you but once you step out of your home you are going to be indicted. You who was talking about aberration, don't you realise clothes are the aberration in nature? Even your favourite Hebrew myth acknowledges this fact.

Consent is one of the legs on which morality stands. Check it, stealing, rape, murder, pedophilia, assault, etc all violate that ideal. Consent is not the only principle on which morality stands and I didn't say it was.

BTW morality comes from ourselves both individually and collectively so your assertion that atheists don't take their morality from outside themselves is just wrong on several levels.

budaatum:


Hmm. Your soul is that which your mind identifies as you? (I say, mind, on the assumption that is where you ability to be conscious resides).

I don't have an "Internal/Personal Identity", TenQ. I find that my mind constantly evolves as I feed it with knowledge and experiences, and the ability to reflect has ensured the feedback loop creates constant flux so that buda saying buda identifies as this or that would be untrue almost immediately after it is said.

Others do label one with personal identity however, though obviously not internal, but I find they often have insufficient information and are just generalising.

I see that you are doing everything to discard the term soul in favour of the mind.

But of a truth, the mind is just a subset of the activities of the soul.

Let's review the definition:
What is the Soul?
1. The Soul is the self/personal/internal IDENTITY of a person: the source of our WILL, INTELLECT and EMOTION!
2. These three effects of the Soul is called the MIND! Someone like me sees the soul as the Software of the Body (hardware). The software thus must interact with the hardware of the brain in other to control the body.

In other words, the Soul is the OBJECT while the Mind is the ATTRIBUTE of the Object.

The only alternative is to reduce the Mind to just the BRAIN (hardware) without the Programming Software.

In other words, just like the five senses are parts of the Physical Body, your mind is a part of your soul!

Once you can see the Soul as the bundle of Softwares that run the body, everything becomes clear.

TenQ:

I think I've answered this question at least twice.

Since in either position, no objective evidence can be established (no one can cut open any part of the body to show the mind or the soul), the best we can humanly do is to give a logical postulate/theory.

Therefore we have to propose our theory using the already known to explain the unknown.

For me, a known information is about the workings of a computer. I see a very strong parallel between how it functions with how the body of a living being function. In this case, the brain, central nervous system, eyes, and other organs of the body being analogous to the computer hardware and the Soul/Spirit represent the Application Softwares, System Softwares and Operating systems of a computer.

With this knowledge, I can describe the unknown from what is already known.

Like in all scientific theory, a theory is discarded if a better theory comes along. Any good theory must solve emergent problems and observations.ve a more robust alternate theory?

The facts point to the full grounding of mind in body, you who say mind can be independent of body are the one who needs to provide evidence for your assertions.

killyaselfie:


The Brain is the source of the WILL, INTELLECT, EMOTION. These three effects amongst others are part of conciousness or mind and you don't need a soul to explain how the brain generates the effects. On the other hand, your "soul" is totally dependent on the acceptance of your claim that it "interfaces with the liver ,spleen ,brain.

Can you answer this question:
Can you truely say that the CPU, GPU, RAM is the source of all the attributes of a computer?
OR
The Softwares Bundle (Application Softwares, Systems Software, Operating Systems software) is the Source of all activities of the Computer?

killyaselfie:


Dude, tell us what a soul is and how we can see or detect it before claiming there is a "strong interface" between it and the liver, brain, kidneys or whatever.

Okay!
Can you tell me how to detect, see or describe the software in a HDD or CPU of a computer without using another software?
Or what sensor is available for detecting or viewing the Softwares in a computer/MPU without using another Software?

budaatum:


I would claim it is my mind that I feed with knowledge and experience and learning with my entire being too for it to grow well, me being a huge fan of ask and knock and seek with all one's heart and soul and mind and being.

Can we agree that where you say soul I say mind? It has to do with the level of control one has over either, I think.

I have no problem with using the mind and the soul synonymously.

Only that I feel that the mind is a little restrictive as it concentrates more on the intellect and less on emotion or will of a person.

budaatum:

Are you saying my consciousness is my soul?

The totality of your consciousness is your soul: expressed as your PERSONAL IDENTITY and the source of your Will, Emotion and Intellect.

budaatum:

Do you not see a problem with this? Why would I generalise about something I admit to having insufficient information about? Is that not the same as ignorantly asserting?

Consider how you would react if I generalise about what you in fact have more information about. Would I not sound rather ignorant if my insufficiently informed generalisation does not conform to your own knowledge or the actual facts?

I think one should just admit one does not have sufficient information and go look for more information instead of believing ones insufficiently informed generalising and then asking others to believe it too.

You have never seen God, yet you know/believe He is!

In the scientific community, we have what is called a THEORY!

A theory attempts to explain the unknown by what is known.

No one has be able to cut open a body and bring out the mind/soul. Meaning that until that happens, every understanding about the mind/soul will be just a THEORY!

It's is a valid way of reasoning my dear Buda

LordReed:


The facts point to the full grounding of mind in body, you who say mind can be independent of body are the one who needs to provide evidence for your assertions.

Can a program/algorithm exist outside a computer (HDD, CPU, GPU, RAM, ROM)?

LordReed:

This is funny because you don't say why the issue of consent is weak with regards to homosexuality instead you substitute other things in and argue against those. Can you show how consent is actually weak with regards to homosexuality? Not that I was even arguing that consent is the reason why homosexuality is normative. It seems you don't understand my statements and instead of asking for clarification you are arguing against what I didn't say.

And you don't see that people are waking up to the fact that our treatment of animals goes against our very conception of morality or even good health. Or why do you think vegans and vegetarians exist? Do you think only atheists are vegans and vegetarians? A footballer was dropped by his sponsors because he kicked a cat for shittìng on his bed. Society is changing its mores towards animals.

Nudity is not immoral, public nudity is censured because it could lead to a breakdown of order. Your nudity in private is not considered immoral, you are free to walk around your home nude all day every day, nobody would say boo to you but once you step out of your home you are going to be indicted. You who was talking about aberration, don't you realise clothes are the aberration in nature? Even your favourite Hebrew myth acknowledges this fact.

Consent is one of the legs on which morality stands. Check it, stealing, rape, murder, pedophilia, assault, etc all violate that ideal. Consent is not the only principle on which morality stands and I didn't say it was.

BTW morality comes from ourselves both individually and collectively so your assertion that atheists don't take their morality from outside themselves is just wrong on several levels.

To a very large extent, All laws are to protect the people and Morality can be Objective or Subjective. Where morality has an objective source, no argument suffices. Where morality is subjective, we can argue and postulate why or why not it should remain a standard.

For me, Homosexuality is an example of an objective morality (from my God). No argument or suffices. It's like arguing why the maximum speed limit on a particular road is 100km/h and not 105km/h.

Vegetarians can be atheists or theists. My argument was that: if consent is the reason for a subjective morality we don't ask for the consent of chickens before eating them, why should we ask for consent from them if we feel like having sex with them?

On nudity: I believe you understand that nudity is not offensive indoors. It only becomes offensive in public. BUT it hurts nobody; does it?

Robot Achieves Self-Awareness, Is Quickly Turned Off and ‘Dies’
German researchers watched in horror as a true artificial intelligence emerged, only to be turned off by a human tester.

https://www.roboticsbusinessreview.com/rbr/robot_achieves_self_awareness_is_quickly_turned_off_and_dies/

TenQ:

On nudity: I believe you understand that nudity is not offensive indoors. It only becomes offensive in public. BUT it hurts nobody; does it?

Except those who claim the the human body to be some sort of abominable spectre: especially Allahu Akbar people dem.

DeepsightX:


Except those who claim the the human body to be some sort of abominable spectre: especially Allahu Akbar people dem.

My argument to him was that an activity no hurting others does not make it moral and okay!
Imagine of Buhari should decide to exercise his freedom of expression by appearing in the public with nothing other than a bowtie, pants and shoe.

TenQ:

My argument to him was that an activity no hurting others does not make it moral and okay!
Imagine of Buhari should decide to exercise his freedom of expression by appearing in the public with nothing other than a bowtie, pants and shoe.

Ol boy that will hurt others big time!

TenQ:

Can a program/algorithm exist outside a computer (HDD, CPU, GPU, RAM, ROM)?

You keep asking the same question that has been answered and does not provide any answer to question asked. No it can't, now can you stop asking this question and answer the one I asked you.

TenQ:

To a very large extent, All laws are to protect the people and Morality can be Objective or Subjective. Where morality has an objective source, no argument suffices. Where morality is subjective, we can argue and postulate why or why not it should remain a standard.

Morality doesn't have an objective source. We (humans) are the source of morality which is why we discuss what it should be.

For me, Homosexuality is an example of an objective morality (from my God). No argument or suffices. It's like arguing why the maximum speed limit on a particular road is 100km/h and not 105km/h.

Good now you make it clear that you are following a "divine" command not because you know it is good or bad. Nor do you care about the facts, you will obey this "divine" command even in the face of contrary facts.

Vegetarians can be atheists or theists. My argument was that: if consent is the reason for a subjective morality we don't ask for the consent of chickens before eating them, why should we ask for consent from them if we feel like having sex with them?

We don't because we have evolved from beings who were instinctively following survival dictates. Now that we have more complex reasoning capacity we are faced with how continuing to eat animals fits with our morality and ethics. The move has been from indifference to treating animals more humanely then to not eating them at all. How you can see that and think bestiality will become normative is the blind spot I am point out to you. Again consent is one of the legs morality stands on and continuing to kill animals for food is kicking against it.

On nudity: I believe you understand that nudity is not offensive indoors. It only becomes offensive in public. BUT it hurts nobody; does it?

Did you even read what I wrote about why it is censured in public?

HardMirror:
you err in this.... while you cannot control your own brain (directly), you quickly and promptly forget that you can do this through drugs?
You quickly forget or deliberately ignore the fact that drugs and absolutely alter reality. Which is proof that a chemical process affects what we think is the mind... therefore proving that the mind is not spiritual. Your reality is in and through you brain activities only

Sorry for taking you back!

Let's look at things from this perspective:
Some scientists are arguing about the source of artificial intelligence in the new AI robot. The scientists were in two groups
Group A: said that the AI robot functions through a Software Program acting on the hardware
Group B: said the AI robot functions through electrical currents. They even have evidence of how magnetism and electric impulses can change how the robot operates

Which of the two Groups do you think is correct?


I think it is very similar to the argument of chemicals changing/modifying how a living being function. Could it also be that it is the software/algorithm/soul is the one who releases the appropriate chemicals for the appropriate event?

LordReed:


Morality doesn't have an objective source. We (humans) are the source of morality which is why we discuss what it should be.

I hope you know that when the government says that the speed limit in a particular road is 30km/h, it is a form of objective moral source. Objective source of morality is NOT exclusive to God.

LordReed:

Good now you make it clear that you are following a "divine" command not because you know it is good or bad. Nor do you care about the facts, you will obey this "divine" command even in the face of contrary facts.

Have you ever argued with the rational why a speed limit on a road is 100km/h and not 101km/h?
Why is adult age 18years and not 16 years. That's why a 17year 10month old girl is treated as a minor with respect to sexual activities with an adult.

Same with any objective morality?

LordReed:

We don't because we have evolved from beings who were instinctively following survival dictates. Now that we have more complex reasoning capacity we are faced with how continuing to eat animals fits with our morality and ethics. The move has been from indifference to treating animals more humanely then to not eating them at all. How you can see that and think bestiality will become normative is the blind spot I am point out to you. Again consent is one of the legs morality stands on and continuing to kill animals for food is kicking against it.

Did you even read what I wrote about why it is censured in public?

But we will also feed and accept that carnivorous animals in our zoos must be fed with MEAT!
Humans will never get to a point where rationality makes us all vegetarians!

TenQ:

Okay!
Can you tell me how to detect, see or describe the software in a HDD or CPU of a computer without using another software?
Or what sensor is available for detecting or viewing the Softwares in a computer/MPU without using another Software?

Go to the nearest computer technician and ask them.

TenQ:

I hope you know that when the government says that the speed limit in a particular road is 30km/h, it is a form of objective moral source. Objective source of morality is NOT exclusive to God.

Nope. Land speed laws are not morality they are laws. Laws and morality often coincide but they are not the same thing.

Have you ever argued with the rational why a speed limit on a road is 100km/h and not 101km/h?
Why is adult age 18years and not 16 years. That's why a 17year 10month old girl is treated as a minor with respect to sexual activities with an adult.

Same with any objective morality?

Again no, these are laws put in place in society to establish order. Age limits differ from place to place so do the land speed limits. It is the society that determines what those limits should be based on their own societal demands. There is no singular source dictating what these limits should be.

But we will also feed and accept that carnivorous animals in our zoos must be fed with MEAT!
Humans will never get to a point where rationality makes us all vegetarians!

Animals are not under obligation to follow our morality.

Never said they would.

LordReed:

You keep asking the same question that has been answered and does not provide any answer to question asked. No it can't, now can you stop asking this question and answer the one I asked you.

You were the one who says that the mind cannot be independent of the body

LordReed:


The facts point to the full grounding of mind in body, you who say mind can be independent of body are the one who needs to provide evidence for your assertions.

I have given you a parallel between the mind and the programmings of a computer and thus I asked the question

Can a program/algorithm exist outside a computer (HDD, CPU, GPU, RAM, ROM)?

The answer is YES!

You said NO it can't but you are wrong.
A Computer Program is a Sequence of Instructions, Directives and Information which of course first exist in the MIND of the programmer, then it gets put on PAPER before it is TYPED in a Text Editor. From the Text Editor it is Compiled into machine language after which it is loaded into a computer.

The sequence of instruction is the real computer programs: several different mediums can be used to record it. It just happens that the last media is the HDD, CPU, RAM of the computer.

So, how different is a paper and a HDD in the storage of the computer program?

TenQ:

You were the one who says that the mind cannot be independent of the body

I have given you a parallel between the mind and the programmings of a computer and thus I asked the question

Can a program/algorithm exist outside a computer (HDD, CPU, GPU, RAM, ROM)?

LoL see why I said you misunderstand. It is you who is claiming the mind can be independent of the body not me. You are the ones who believe in concepts such as soul and an afterlife.